tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee 12215 SFGTV December 5, 2015 7:30am-12:06pm PST
economic and workforce development to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1 million from the california department of education through the city college of san francisco for the california career pathways trust grant. >> thank you. we have michael carr here to speak on this item. >> good morning and thank you, farrell and mar and tang. this is a wonderful opportunity to present or to receive this grant. the goal of the ccpt grant which is the california, career pathways trust grant to build a robust, partnership between, employers and schools and community colleges to better prepare the students for the 20th century workplace and to improve the transition into the training employment. san francisco applied as a coalition, which required three partners, and of those three partners was city college of san francisco, the san francisco unified school district. and oewd. we received city college
received a grant in the total amount of 6 million and is subcontracting to oewd to serve as the business partner and so the amount that we are receiving is 1 million. and 56,000 for the fiscal year of 15-16 and year, 16-17. this is a great partnership and i know that you have a long meeting today i will cut my presentation short and answer any questions if you have them at this time. >> thank you, mr. car. by the way i want to welcome you, this is the first time appearing as the new head of the workforce development in the city. welcome. >> thank you. >> colleges questions? >> i just like to be added as a co-sponsor next to tang for being the lead sponsor on this thank you so much. >> thank you for your support sir. thank you. >> with that we will move on to public comment, anybody wish to comment on item three? >> okay, seeing none, closed. colleagues could i have a
motion to move this forward. >> so moved. we can take that without objection. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk, could you call item, 4 through 20 together? >> 4, resolution, approving amendment number one to the department of public health contract for the services with alternative family services to extend the contract by two years. five, resolution approving amendment number one to the department of public health to extend to two years, and amendment number one to the contract and services with central city, house to extend by two years. 7, approving amendment to the department of public health contract with community awareness and treatment services to ex-at the pointed the contract by two years, 8, resolution, to amend the number
two, with the con ard house to extend by two years, 9, approving amendment two, for the health services with edge wood center for children and families. and extend by two years. ten, resolution, approving amendment number one to the department of public health to extend by two years. eleven, resolution approving amendment number two to extend the contract by two years. 12, resolution approving number one, to the department of public health contract with hyde street community street services, tend the contract by two years. 13, resolution, approving number two, with the familiar de laraza to extend two years,
and 14, approve, with the progress foundation to extend the contract by two years. amendment, to approving amendment three, for the reintelligents of university of california san francisco to extend by two years. 16, resolution approving number two to the department of public health contract with behavior health services with the university of california san francisco, to the single point responsibility program to extend the contract by two years. 17, number two, to the department of public health contract and with incorporated to extend by two years. 18, resolution to approve, with the richmond, services to extend by two years. 19, approving amendment number two, with seneca center, to extend by two years.
20, approval to extent by two years. >> okay, thank you mr. clerk, we have dphhere to speak thanks for coming. >> thank you, supervisors. and it is michelle and i over see the business office which receives the contract processing and certification for the department of public health and so we are here today to request the extension of these contracts, to allow to us align our community, based services with the integrated service network which is called the san francisco, health network and this is in response to the realignment of our services for at fordable care act and then more recently, in
august of 2015, we have an approved demonstration, wave, which is going to impact and change and add new services in our substance abuse, delivery system. so and also, the two-year, window will allow to us roll out multiple rpfs instead of doing one mega, which we tried once before to not repeat. so, that is why we are requesting the extension, these are all long standing health agencies that i am sure that you know and we have been here before with them. and they are on, listed on page, 4. and it is the full list. and mostly they are not, big changes. but i will go over the ones that are changing but i do need to note for the record, there is a footnote, indicating ta we are going to be can you be mitting, revised resolutions. and there are typos really, and some changes, all of the changes are reflected here so you are seeing, what is final. but the changes will be on to 7
of them. and central, city hospitality house, conard house, health write, 360, progress foundation, the regents of the university of california at san francisco, city wide. that is the first one and then, richmond, area, multiservices childrens and adults contract. so, on the next page, is a summary, mostly the contracts are not changing what the increases are doing is the cost of doing business, increases over time, but the ones that have the larger increases, alternative family services, that is placements for foster care, kids and group homes. and hsa does the referrals of the foster care youth and dph, provides the services and so the increase is to insure that we are able to provide all of the mental health services that are needed as well as there was a new state law, lawsuit, and
it resulted in a requirement to do 100 percent accessments of all foster care, youth place sxment so previously we had done, around 40 percent and so that funding covers that increase. so for edge wood you can see the substantial increase in the state grnt that was funded by the services act funding for youth crisis, stabilization, and a mobile crisis team. the regents of california, the spr program, single point of responsibility program, we expanded it like we have with all of our intensive, case management programs and that was funded with mental health services and the funding as well as, medical. and then, the children's program is implementation of the wellness center that spreads across the public, high school that is spending is increased to cover the services that rams provide.
and then finally, the adult program received an increase for services that are related to the health services act that the rfp that those funding has rolled out. but that is the bulk of the changes. i know combined a lot of contracts and i am happy to answer any questions. there weren't, we did a lot of prework to get the dollars to be in the right place before they got to the budget analyst. so they approved with no other changes beser besides the resolution changes we are making thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions right now? mr. rose could besinger we go to your report, please? yes, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, on page 3 of our report, the total amount not-to-exceed amount of the 17 contracts is $651 million.
dph is requesting a total increase to 22589, for a contract not-to-exceed of 876 million. and that is shown in the table on page 4 of our report. we can recommend that you do approve this legislation. >> thank you there rose. colleagues any questions? or for the department? okay, we will move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on 4 through 20. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> could i have a motion to moss these forward. >> i believe that there is a request for an amendment to some of the items. if i could get a list of those. >> from dph, you want, sorry. there some amendments. >> right. >> do we have those in front of us. >> no.
the amendments that we will bring them to you. yeah. >> i believe that they are clerical in nature. >> but i want to be sure that before we vote we need to have them in front of us. or you can read them into the record if they are minor. >> the numbers that are in the report reflect what is in the revised resolution, so this is the correct numbers. the have the hand penciled changes do you want me to read those? sorry. >> i am going to turn to the city attorney here. i want to make sure that we are not vote og blank amendments. >> why don't you go to the next item and i will talk with dph and figure out how to do this. >> okay. >> sounds good. all right could you call 21.
>> item 21, resolution, retroactively approving lease with the united states government for office space to be occupied by the united states drug enforcement at terminal three, at the airport for five years, to commence, for a lease amount of $431,763. >> okay. we have cathy here from the airport. >> good morning. cathy with the san francisco international airport. and the airport is seeking your approval for a new lease with the united states of america, for space to be used by the drug enforcement agency. the please will take up 6,000 square feet in the terminal three it has a term of five years and annual rent of $404,000 as well as 27,000 in operating costs. the proposed lease is
essentially the same terms as previously leases with the dea that are approved by the board of supervisors and the last one is a five year term in 2010, this new lease does have a slight increase in rent and going from the previous annual rent of 341,000 a year, to the current proposed $432,000. this lease was not awarded through a competitive bid process. as the dea is another governmental agency that is required to have a presence at the airport. it has been granted a full source waiver and recommend approval and i would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. seeing no questions, we will move on to the budget analyst report. could we do that mr. rose? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, this resolution, as approved in the lease with the dea and on page 9 of our report we state that it is shown in table three, the
total amount annual payment to be made by the dea to the airport is $431,757 and that consists of $404,442 for annual rent. 27,315 in operating cost and dea is to pay the airport, $2 million, 158, 785 in total rent and operating costs in the proposed new five year lease, we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions? seeing none we will move on to public comment, anybody wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. could i have a motion to move this forward. so moved. >> we can take that without
objection could you call item 22? >> item number 22, resolution approving the term of the 2011 lease and use agreement between capania panamena de aviacion with the city and county of san francisco with the rent of $839,000 for the exclusive use space plus the use space to rent and the lease and terms and commence, following the board approval through june, 30. 2021.
>> item, 25, item 26, amendment number one of the terminal, two, coffe and bakery, item, 27, resolution to approve, the quick serve lease. item 28 a proving number one of the terminal quick serve lease with andale management group. and item 29 to approve, number one with the bj annex and item, 30, with hbf, sotojv. item, 31, cocktail lounge lease. 32 approving amendment number one, with the electronics and technology lease, with edge, 1.
and item 33, resolution, approving amendment number one of the terminal two and three spa lease with xpresspa san francisco international. item 34, resolution approving amendment number one to the terminal two, news stand coffee and specialty stores lease with host international incorporated. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. clerk, welcome back again. >> can you, cathy with the san francisco international airport. thank you for calling all 12 items together as the amendment to each of the 12 lease iss essentially the same, exact thing, addressing an incorrect some incorrect language in the original lease term for all 12 of these leases in our terminal two. when the leases were written, it was set as 20 months making
the proper application of the rent instruct you are of the mag verses the gross revenue, whichever is greater, extremely complicated. this year is one of many defined terms in the lease and the new definition was created for the terminal two, leases before you. for the calculation of the rent and as i mentioned all of them have a minimum annual guarantee, or the percentage of rent, whichever is greater and which is applied on a lease year basis, and so the rent structure, and the amendment that is before you, resets the rent, structure and starts a new, lease term, at the beginning of each, defined, lease year. will be adjusted with the consumer index and with the new lease year. the new lease year definition was created to ease the efforts
by having all mags adjust on january first, the new language, just alines all of the timing of the mag adjustments at the same period, and it is directed in nature and does not have a financial impact or the city or the airport and so there are no budget analyst amendments but i am happy to answer questions. >> seeing none, we will move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on 23, 34? seeing none, comment public is closed. >> motioned by tang and seconded by mar and we can take that without objection. could you call item 35? >> resolution, approving the coordination, agreement, between the city of san francisco, and the bay area, motive, and the other participating cities.
the city of berkeley, emeriville and the city of oakland and the san jose, for the term of ten years. >> all right, thank you we have mta to speak on this. >> good morning, and chair and members, my name is heath and i am the planner and the manager for the sfmta i will give the remarks and turn it over to emily, who is the manager, which will be the owner and operator of the system. the document that we are asking you to approve today, is called the coordination agreement, for the bay area, bike share program. it is one of two agreements that are necessary for the ex-proposed expansion from the 700 bikes to 7,000, bikes and so a ten fold, expansion. and 4500 of those will be located in san francisco.
there is another agreement, which is necessary for the bike share program expansion and it is called the program agreement. and the city of san francisco is not a party to this agreement. and it is being, executed between, the metropolitan transportation commission but it is included as a an attachment. and the main contract. we have had a pilot program for two-plus, years and the model for expansion, and the financial model is going to be very different, the existing pilot, and the system is owned by the public sector and by the bay area, and quality management district, and they have contracted on the participating agencies to
procure, deploy and operate the system on our behalf, but for the expansion the model is very different. basically, we are permitting mad voit and they are funding it at their own expense and the expense of a sponsor, which they need to secure. without the use of public funds and it is similar to the system that the city bike system in new york city. so in terms of timing, if the approvals are complete, this year, as we anticipate they will be, and the sponsor is found early next year, then, there should be expansion and the bikes are starting to hit the street within a year and so next fall and then the expansion, it is because of its size will take approximately, two years to roll out, in four
or five phases. i will hand it over to emily and if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, chair farrell and members of the committee. i am happy to walk through a few more details for the expanded bay area, bike share program. as heath mentioned we will be expanding the system from the current, 700 bikes to 7,000 bikes. and after, the approval here in san francisco, and the other city participating in the program, in san jose, and emery, and oakland, we will be prosiding this program, again, at no cost to the city with no public funding based on sponsor ship and operating increasing public health and the transit across the bay area.
and our operation will also be bringing new jobs to the larger bay area, and including san francisco, san jose and the east bay. further bike share, reduces con geks and the impact on the environmental and health benefit and supports vision zero. we are working with the professional engineering firm to identify the locations that make sense for the bike share, in terms of the existing bicycle infrastructure and is also, the, residential and commercial, densities. we go through the public out reach to validate the firm in what will work best for the community in doing this we will be hosting multiple public out reach sessions so that the members of the public can review the plans and comment on the plans and influence the
final decision about where the bike share is located. members of the community can comment on the website. and looking on suggested stations and making their voice heard today by clicking on locations that they would like to see the bike share. with that, if there are any questions? from the committee, i am happy to answer and heath is available as well. >> thanks. if there was a power point, meant to be disply, we did not display it on tv, we have copies, if you wish to view it. supervisor mar? >> i want to thank stapleton for coming here to really develop our program, ten fold in san francisco, and regionally, and i would want to
thank, swartz as well and mr. maddox and the mta and i did have a question about the 20 percent of the bike expansion, to local communities that are concerned in the low income and heavily polluted communities that have sometimes really more difficult access to transit. and connecting up to the transit systems but could you talk about that requirement in the expansion? >> absolutely. 20 percent of the stations located here in san francisco, will be located in communities that are concerned, and we will touch all 7 communities and we have a program for affordable of the program that offers a low cost, membership at a rate of $5 a month and $60 over the course of the year. that numbers are eligible for, if they are eligible for the life line program, through the utility and the muni care program and we think that it is really important to connect all
corners of the city and make sure that it is for everyone and the low cost, membership will enhance the program and make it an asset to san francisco. >> and i know that the corporate sponsors are the process now and i wanted to thank, supervisor campos and weiner for taking this on and caren from the air quality management district for the several years and i think that i was riding on the first day or the first week. dy want to say that san francisco is getting light on's share of this expansion, with 4172 more bikes and my hope is that there are strong engagement not with the
website, but talking to the institutions like the university of san francisco and others, that probably want to partner, as we look at communities of concern, like the inner richmond, which is one of them but most of them are on the east side. but i also wanted to say too, that the registration, and annual fee will go up but i am please that had there is consideration for subsidizing the lower, income, and others and so thank you for putting this together and i am supported and i want to be added as a co-sponsor as well. >> thank you. >> i want to make sure that the huds that are you going into these communities of concern are really as dust as possible
that it is not just a couple of bikes and that is all that we are going to do and could you speak a little bit to that? and what you are thinking? >> absolutely. as i mentioned one of the important things is the density of the network and we are aiming for a density of 18 stations per square mile and so as we expand into the new neighborhoods we want to make sure that the density is uniform. and so that the utility of the program is there so if you arrive, and the station is full there is an alternative that is a short ride and a short walk away. we fully understand, that this program is most useful, when the availability of bikes and docs are at a level where the people can rely on this service as the option and also. the density is important and just to reiterate to your point, we will be doing, not only a website but also, in
person, meetings, and town halls in the communities so that we get the direct feedback about the most suitable locations through these residents. >> thank you, one of the big concerns that i had was making sure that this was rolled out, and especially the expansion and these communities, of concern and any culturally competent way and so i am wondering if you can talk to that and speak to that. how is it that we are going to be reaching out to these communities and these communities of concern? you have a lot of mono speakers and how are we going to reach out to them? and also there may be folks, in fact some of the ones that you want to see them use aavailable themselves of the program that may not have a credit card. how can they access the bikes, or the program if they don't have that? >> right. we will have the out reach for the print and the public meetings that we have and so we do expect to be able to reach
as broad of a segment of the community as we can. through those communication channels. and second, in terms of credit at this time, there is not a cash payment option. but it is something that we will continue to review, as we move bike share along. >> what is your time line in terms of reviewing this, because i think that is very important and i think that the people that you actually and, that could benefit the most from this program are the people that may mot have access to credit. and i think that addressing that issue is really, important. so, what is your time line? >> so the initial roll out time line for the program, as scoped, is within the first, 26 months after rolling out after finalizing the contract, and within that window it will be looking at what the alternatives would be for alternative payments. >> that is not to me, when i voted for this at the mtc, that was not something that i would have found acceptable, 26
months, to develop, a strategy for dealing with people, who have no credit cards. i don't, i don't think that is acceptable. so, is there a way that you can actually come back to us within a couple of months with a strategy. because, i think that the idea that it would take us, more than 2 years to figure out, how we make this program accessible, to these folks, and i mean this does not make sense to me. >> right to besinger clarify this is something that we are looking at today. and that we are working with partners in the community, and existing non-profits, and community stake holders who have similar, programs and maybe an alternative industries. and so, the idea is not to wait for 26 months or to begin the conversations today and we can come back with some of our findings in the next couple of months. >> i appreciate that and i want to make sure that you come back in a specific period of time. i am wondering if you can come back to us in a couple of months to see where you are. >> sure. >> thank you.
>> okay, great. colleagues any further questions or comments? >> all right. there is no budget analyst report for this, i just before we go to public comment. i just want to say thanks for being here and thanks to supervisor campos and everyone else who has worked on this and as i mentioned to you before, i can't wait to put more and more bikes in district two and i know that it is not planned for a while and anything that i can do to speed that along i am happy to do so. with that, we will open up to public comment on item 35, anybody wish to comment on this item? >> hi,. a community organizers, at the san francisco, bicycle coalition, the coalition is excited about the bay area, expansion, for years our vision has been to see the world class, bike share system in san francisco, with 7,000 bikes, and 4500 of them in san francisco, this will be exactly that. we consider the upgraded bike share system to be san
francisco's first new transit system in generations and the best way to achieve, san francisco's greenhouse grassy mission and most shared goals. and making bike share affordable and accessible, will provide the low income, communities a healthy transportation option and improve for the jobs and schools and opportunities, and the expansion will build the bicycle economy by creating new transportation and bike related jobs and we are proud to support and work hard to insure that the expansion, progresses on schedule. the san francisco, bicycle coalition looks forward to engaging in organizing our members and other community stake holders over the coming months to make the bike systems the best possible. thank you. >> anybody else wish to comment on item 35? >> okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. >> so moved. >> motioned by mar and seconded by tang and we can take it
without objection. >> okay, mr. clerk, could you call item 36. >> item 36, resolution, adopting a fix twoeed year budgetary cycle for multiple city departments. academy of sciences adult probation, airport, arts commission, asian art museum, assess soar recorder, board of appeals, building inspection child support services and child submission and city attorney, city planning civil service, controller county education, district attorney, economic and workforce development and environment, agent thicks and fine arts, and general services, and general services and information systems, health services system, human resources human rights, juvenile probation, law law braer, and mayor port, public library, and public utility commission and status of women and treasurer, tax collector and trial courts and war memorial and defining terms and setting deadlines. >> thank you. so colleagues, this item needs a you little bit more work
before we have a thoughtful discussion on this. from my perspective. it is something that i agreed to co-sponsor and i do believe that we should move forward as a board on this. and make sure that we retain all of the budgetary authority that we have as at board of supervisor and looking forward to creating more efficiency as much as possible during our budget process. so with that, being said we will open this up to public comment, but i will be entertaining a motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> could i speak to this? >> sure. >> campos. >> thank you, mr. chair. i actually wanted to be here for this item. and i am glad to hear that it is going to be continued. i am all for efficiency. and how we do the budgeting. but to me, the proposal that is before us is a problematic proposal. and i think it really goes to the core of the authority and power of the board of supervisors as an institution and it is actually has not got
a lot attention, but it is one of the important items that the board has considered in quite a long time. because what it does, is that, it changes the way budgeting happens for dozens of the departments. and in doing so, it does so, by fundamentally, taking a lot of the authority that the board has to review those budgets on an annual basis. and that is a very, dangerous precedent. and one that i think that we should not take lightly. and so, i am still not sure why we are going down this path. the fact is that a rolling two, year process, allows us to benefit from the planning that comes when you think about a two year period of time, without the challenge of losing the authority of the board of supervisors. the other point that i would note and i think that the budget and legislative analyst, made this clear in their report.
is that there is, there are no criteria, that are being used by the mayor, in his staff, in deciding who gets to be a part of this two year fixed budget and who doesn't. i think that the public needs to know, that if this item goes forward, it fundamentally changes the power of the board of supervisors and the public in being able to review, and apply on how the budgets happens for dozens. dozens of departments. i am grateful that we are going to slow it down and maybe, rethink it, but i am very worried about this, but i think that it is a very dangerous, precedent, thank you. >> i appreciate those comments, supervisor campos. and reportfully, i disagree with the premise that we are
advocating authority, and i do not support that, and we can have that discussion, and i am not sure that anybody on the board would agree with, that being said for another day, but supervisor tang. >> i actually just wanted to echo what farrell was saying. i will save the bulk of this discussion for when this is in the budget committee. i wanted to respond to the comment that it is setting a dangerous precedent, it is not because we have certain departments that are on a fix twoeed year budget, and so we are actually trying to get the rest the remaining of the city departments on a two year budget. and as we all know that by the time the budget comes before the board of supervisors and we are taking formal action here, it is a minuscule part of the budget and the bulk of the budget that we do and need to do a better job of perhaps is working more during the process that the budget is being developed. i think that nothing will stop
us from asking the questions in the middle of the two year budgeting process and asking our budget analyst to conduct analysis and even for us to make the changes, during the two year, time period. and so it in that case, i will keep it at that and have a further discussion later on. >> thank you, supervisor tang, supervisor mar. >> i just wanted to thank supervisor farrell for giving more time and thanks the budget analyst for analysis and i do see that in on page, 18, and as mr. rose, probably report on, that he does view this as in some ways of giving away of the budgetary authority of the board of supervisor and raises cautions about that. and also, other disadvantages he highlights, lacking specific, criteria for determining which city departments two year budgets will be fixed. so there is a number of questions that the budget analyst raises my hope is that over the next week period we can get answered. but thanks to farrell for continuing this item.
>> thank you, and this is something from my perspective that we should be agreeing on and having a consensus from the board of supervisors moving forward. >> okay. that being said, we will entertain a motion to continue this item. >> so moved. we need to take the public comment. anybody wish to comment on this item? >> mr. johnson? >> thank you, supervisor, and connor johnson legislative to the board, london breed and she asked me to pop in and thank you for continuing this and she has concerns about it as well because it could be perceived as the board, ak fiesing its budgetary authority to the control and her the mayor's office and she would be like to be involved in that conversation as well. >> okay, mr. johnson. anybody else? >> chan, and board president of safe house, san francisco located in supervisor campos's district. thank you for raising those concerns. we have just been notified that
we are being cut by $70,000, our budget and it is unclear to us how we would participate in getting those changed. we provide, ten beds of transitional housing for homeless women. and kind of i was here for the next item, but, supervisor campos, thank you for making it so clear how this impacts us. >> thank you, anybody else like to comment? >> colleagues, could i have a motion to continue the item to the call of the share? >> so moved. >> motion bid mar and seconded by tang and we can take that without objection. >> mr. clerk, if you would, could you call, 48 please? >> ordinance amending the administrative code to the require inclusion of the prevailing wage, and for the development of housing and where the city is a landlord and to require, inclusion of
prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, and authorizing the office of labor and standards and enforcement and office of economic, and workforce development. >> thank you. supervisor, cohen is here to speak on this item. >> thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come here and talk about the item and i know that you have a busy agenda and so i wip hop right to it, this less lacing was a result of months of conversations. particularly we engaged conversations with the office of labor standards and enforcement in the mayor's office of housing. this will create a new prevailing wage and the local hire and the requirements for the sale and the lease of city owned properties for the purpose of developing mixed use housing project and so currently, as it stands, the
city requires all contractors to perform, to pay, prevailing wage. and it also requires that they comply at the state program, and if the contract is over $600,000, they must comply with the local hire. my thought is let's eliminate the double standard and even out the playing field. and so earlier this year, this board, submitted a surplus, property measure reiterating our belief that the city surplus, properties should be used whenever possible to construct, affordable housing. so it is essential that we insure that these pro-jek jects are with the same requirements that we have for our own public, and work contractors. and the few, people that i want to thank at this time, and the
members of the council who work with my office on this issue, as well as donna from the office of labor standards and enforcement. and lee from the mayor's office of housing provided helpful feedback on this policy and also i want to recognize, danny, campbell who was also instrumental in moving this forward. and i believe that ve have donna with us here. is she here? why don't you come on up. and offer, any additional support and, any of the colleagues have questions you will be able to answer them. i have donna if you have any questions, it is the right thing to do. >> thank you. >> supervisors, good morning. and i have reviewed the ordinance and it will treat the
projects as if they were public works. i think that it is exciting legislation and it will insure, the fair labor standards and a level playing field for the contractors to bid, work, and that the city, can influence, and i think that using this city's ability to do that, is exciting. and it will improve, labor
standards sxh and improve for thousands of people. >> on page, 48 of our report, we note that according to the real estate, division, the local hiring wage require.s will increase the cost of development and may decrease the value of the property sold for housing development is not known, how much the new requirements may reduce, sale prices for the city, owned property for housing development and on the bottom of page, 48, we note that the cost associated with the potential, additional se enforcement staff, may be offset for the additional penalty and, paid by the contractors for the city, however, since it is unknown, how many new complaints would fall under the jurisdiction and
the potential increase in cost of revenue cans not be estimated at this time and so we consider this proposed ordinance to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> thank you. mr. rose. >> i have a couple. >> okay. >> supervisor, cohen? >> at the end of the day, colleagues, these projects are going to be built on city-owned and leased properties and we should be insuring that the construction of these include a prevailing wage and requirements that we all agree, is important, and it is important enough that we include it in the public works contract. and so colleagues, do i ask for your support today. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor, and with that being said, we will open this up to public comment, and anybody wish to comment on this item? i do have one speaker card for michael tario.
>> i want to thank, co-hen and for those who are working hard on it and as well as our attorney. and we think that this is an extension of the values to have the ability to influence s the work and the standards of work. and so that the workers are paid in a decent wage and the opportunities are provided. and the reasonable accommodation, and the reasonable involving accommodation that we reached on the local hire is extended to additional work. and with that, we ask for your support. thank you and anybody else wish to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. i do want to thank, supervisor co-hen for bringing this forward and i would like to be a co-sponsor. could i have a motion to send this forward to the full board? >> with a positive
recommendation. we can take that without objection. if you could move to 44, and the 37 is the jail items that we will hold. >> 44, ordinance aappropriate ating $4 million from the fiscal year, 15-16, power enterprise, fund balance to provide working capitol for the community choice ago program. >> we have the puc to speak. >> good morning, charles, pearl, deputy chief, financial officer, and this item before you today is related to our clean, power sf program that we are developing within our power and enterprise. and for those of you listening, the clean power sf program is
that will allow them to choose a greener program, and launch it in 2016. and so before you today, specifically supervisor iss a interest for a supply mental appropriation for $4 million, and that is to be added to the four million dollars that you approved, back in july and so that will give us a total of $8 million dollars working capitol we are considering reserve, and policies etc., and at a meeting next tuesday. and so, this 8 million dollars.
and this that we are able to actually point to a pool of funds to be able to pay the bills. as you know, the program launches a schedule to be early in 2016, and but before we have the customer and revenue streams, it is sort of hard to give a sense that things are going to be able to have the what we are expecting. and and the reserve, and the controller's reserve and until the time that the funds are needed. and this will serve as a loan. that will allow the program to create a revenue stream for the repayment and i will be happy
to take your questions. and seeing no comments or questions, we will move on to mr. rose's report. please? on page, 46, the operating reserves will receive a total of $8 million in loans from the loan, and including the appropriation, and as well as the $4 million, the total of 8 million is necessary to meet the short term and working capitol needs of the clean power and san francisco program and the initial start up period in the physical years of 15, 16 and we noted as shown in table one again on page, 36 of our report, the clean power, san francisco, expects to receive, the subject $8 million in loans, from the hetch, enterprise in 2016 and a pay a
total of $8 million, in principal and interest. to place the four million and to replace the funds on the control of reserve, until the date these funds are needed for the electricity procurement and we recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance as amended. >> thank you, mr. rose. item, 44, anyone wish to comment? closed and we have a recommendation from the budget analyst, could i have a motion to approve that. >> i move that we approve the ordinance, placed that $4 million, on controller's reserve until the date the funds are immediated for the procurement, and that we approved the proposed ordinance as amended. >> thank you. a motion by supervisor mar and
seconded by tang and we can take it without objection. >> mr. clerk, could you call item 45? >> before moving on i would like to request that the amend version of that legislation be provided to me by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. . resolution, ratifying the purse of the city of van ness for the sale of $80 million dollars. >> thank you. >> i have a powerpoint, but in the interest of time, i will hit the highlights for you, of that powerpoint, to move this
along, swiftly. >> so the background on this item before you today is regarding the sale of 30 van ness. and it is a property that the city has owned since, 2001. and about 150,000 square feet of city office uses, you can see the types of uses in the building there. and on the slide. and it is for the plan for it and we had an initial sense of likely the capitol investments should we retain, the asset and stay in the asset that has now been validated to two different
design and we moved forward with a sales transaction before you today and so the reminder on the background. it was appraised for 43 million, back in 2012, that started the initial process, and then we moved forward with offering the property to the market place at tremendous, interest and brought them to the board and consideration of the finalists, and the terms of
conditions. and so now we are before you today, and with that negotiated purchase, and sale agreement. and with the 30 van ess holdings and which is related to california being a shell corporation for simply the single purpose of acquiring this asset. and so now i would like to talk about the terms and conditions in the agreement before you. we have reversed that for the city's benefit and we have negotiated an additional level
of affordable, to be provided by the developer. and that is valued at approximately, 8 million dollars. and i want to talk briefly then, about the details regarding affordability and we anticipate, as does the developer, that they will move forward with an 80/20 project that the project through the tax credits and on the financing brings, 20 percent, affordability at 50 percent of ami to the protect. and 80 percent market rate. that is an assumption that we have moved forward with, and something that we have built into the contract should that indeed tom ko pass. and the contract is written such that, if they proceed with that approach, the city will not be in a position to have to
pay for additional affordability in. and except for above the level and we want to speak to what those numbers look like. for you. this is a 500 to 600 unit project and 20 percent affordability and 50 percent ami level and we have the ability through identifying funding sources, to acquire additional 13 percent of affordability, bringing it to a 33 percent, affordable project. and that is a decision down stream by the board and we will explain exactly when that occurs and we do anticipate the ground level, retail and we are pleased that this particular respondent to our proposal was excited and enthusiastic, about creating a direct, access to
the muni station to make that a much more welcoming and inviting experience, and you get to and from that station. and lastly, as you may know, the planning department has been putting together a project around the four corners. and since we have so much development, in the pipeline, and at market and van ness and so this has been a part of that conversation and so i want to assure you that this will be coordinated, among all of the other development teams who are all, talking to one another, and it has been a collaborative process so that the residential projects that spring ford and transform, and is in a
thoughtful coordinated fashion. the city will need to find a funding source to acquire affordability for 65 units to get to 33 percent. how do we get there? we feel confident, that we have two and two the over lying, and we have both, suds that effect this property. those fees, and that the generation of fees is anticipated to be about 15 million and so that is one source of funds and that is with certainty. secondly we have looked at over all revenue, not only from this sale but the next set of sales where we will be offering 16 mission, and 168 on mission, and we have compared those
anticipate sales to our pro formo that was brought to you as part of an over all, project, strategy, assuming ratification of the purchase sale agreement is a closing of escrow from january and we have a notification procedure for the bond holders who are carrying some debt on the property and so we need to with that debt and working with her and her staff and this is operating our business out of 30 van ness, and it is a favorable lease back at half of the current market rate in the
civil center. so we are pleased with that lease back, and one important feature of that is that the city, currently provides the services to the building. we will continue to provide those services as the landlord will not be inclined to make the kind of investments that we might find, appropriate and given that the landlord will see an end to the useful life of the property. and whereas, our staff is in there, so we want to be sure that we are happy to answer any questions that you might have about this project. thank you, and i know that in july of this board approves the ordinance but i think that the spirit of it was to sell, for not less than 87 million dollars, and the sale at 80 million, with a couple of the other benefits on, i understand that you are adding up to 90 million, but, can you plain why, you could not meet the
spirit of selling that 87 million? the transaction probably could have been structured differently, to show higher affordability and we felt it important to create the mechanisms that we heard loud and clear were vital. and to move this project forward. and for instance, affordability and going forward. and so, it was a trade off of less cash up front and better strategy, and there is some uncertainty because we cannot tell you exactly when the project will happen. we did conduct with john, on the relative to, and not only to the spirit but the legal requirements under the approved ordinance and, there was a comfort level, that indeed it did. so, again, we have met the tests in a couple of different ways, but most importantly, we have a value here of at least,
90 million dollars, before the board today. >> and then i am, appreciating the slides on the 80/20, getting from the 15 percent on site, below the market rate to 20 percent of affordability. and then, the slide on td so-called, pathway to 33 percent. and so, it is public land and i know that there is expectations that we get up to 33 percent and even 40 percent affordable units including middle income, at times and i know that pathways we veer off of them and you are relying heavily on the other sources that may or may not come forward. and so i am just wondering why it is not much higher than this and getting up to 33 percent and what will it take to get up to the 33 percent? and i know that that is further down the road. but, i need to know a little bit more specifics of how that
will work. >> the fee structure is just math, and we do feel confident that we have a source from fees to really take us halfway to 33 percent. the question mark, is the final receipt of proceeds from the sales of the mission corridor, and assets. and we see this, sale as well as other sales in the market place. and feel very confident, that we will be able to hit our targets and that that will create an adequate, funding source for this board to make that down stream decision. and so that is not an issue before you today, and the issue is that the contract is solid enough to provide the mechanism, that you all will need to make a smart decision, later on. when we know the exact nature
of the project. so the diligence by the developer is completed. and we have a seismickly deficient building and that we know, either requires a tremendous, capitol investment, or an exit. and we are choosing the exit path. and that as the whereas nature, influences the cost. and that the value. and to the city. it is in title under the market, for the certain development and this is not dependent on exceeding those requirements. and so, it is a little bit different than some of another projects that height come before you in an entitlement context where in a greater percentage of affordability is a natural discussion, because there is a quid pro quo there is not one here and we are selling it as is, where is. and we believe that we have exacted the most that we can get from the developer, relative affordability and then created that opportunity
without general fund pressure to aoe secure, additional affordability and i hope that is uponsive to your question. >> i am just looking at the slide of the sale and the time line and it looks like that city can elect, affordability, up to 33 percent if needed comes after the estimated lease back period. entitlement, of the projects, and so it is not until, many of us will be off of the board >> that could be more aggressive, for the developer, there is a decision that the developer thats make in terms of the anticipated reopener to the market and the opportunity that that might present and that could change the time line and so we are considering that. it could be before the board a
little sooner, than suggested in that, and i think that this is a fair estimate of the timing, yes. >> and then i am not implying that it is connected but when will the good will project be completed? >> as we look at our many different options in order to find a destination for our office uses, that particular project time line would be ready, and open for business, at the end of 2018. >> okay, thank you. >> supervisor tang, >> thank you for your questions and just to build on a little bit. and could you talk a little bit about the level of interest that you had receives on this building? and you know, how many people were why you landed on 80 million for the actual sales price? >> happy to and so we had an
over 100 initial, interested investers from across the country, those are widled down to an initial, 15, top candidates. through a series of questions, regarding their intent, and the scope of their project, and the other issues and we wanted to tease out from those candidates we came to a list of four and we came to. and among the four there was aggressive due diligence done, primarily on 30 van ess as is, and i think that was an influencer of the ultimate purchase price in that there were a number of deficiencies in the building that would have to be addressed. and there is some time here where we will be occupancy and there is going to be costs holding that asset. and so, that is, that is a natural, sort of deduct from the ultimate purchase price.
and but the good news is that we have finished that due diligence and it is not speculative and it is fully executed and ready to go. >> about 100 companies that initially. >> yes. >> and since our city attorney is back i wanted to confirm then, that based on what the board of supervisors had passed in july, in terms of the intent, for the sales price, that what we had before us, which is effectively a 90 million, dollars transaction, if that i guess, holds up. and the 5th grader apparently stepped on my son's toes and so i needed to run out of the room. sorry about that. the ordinance from earlier this year, authorized the sale for $87 million. this resolution, authorizes the
sale for the current sale price and so the piece of that ordinance that authorized the sale, does not really matter, it falls away, because you are authorizing the sale ear in the resolution, the rest of that ordinance, made some additional steps, including, waving the surplus, property ordinance, and those pieces of that ordinance were not conditioned on the 87 million dollar, sales price and so, so, the surplus, property, ordinance, findings, in the ordinance that you adopted earlier this year, auk prove the sale with many of the findings are valid and do not need to be amended. >> thank you. >> mr. rose could you go to your report, please? >> members of the committee and, supervisor, campos, on
page 41, table one shows the rent and operating costs totaling, $14.9 million payable by staoet over the first three years of the hold over lease. on page, 43 which has been discussed here, the initial authorization from the board was to sell the property for not less than 80 million, the selling price now, would be 8 percent less or 80 million. to pay the tax which is typically paid by the seller and that is at a cost of $2 million, and these transfer taxes are deposited into the city general funds and so therefore, as shown on table, two on page 44 of the report. the city will actually receive,
82 million from the sale. and further because of the 15 percent, affordability, there will be 15 additional units which are up in the values, and at a total of 533,000 per unit or $8 million and adds the $8 million and plus the two million and plus the 80 million to come up with the value of 90 million dollars, and the net proceeds that the city will receive, that is on page, 44 and you will notice in table three, we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. >> any further questions for the budget analyst? >> okay, why don't we move on to the public comment, and
anybody wish to comment on item 45? >> my name is jazzy and i am with the center for young woman's development and i would like to oppose this, because i feel that all of this money is going to building something that happen of us will not be able to afford. and from personal experience, i have tried to apply for jobs that have higher pay and since i have a record i cannot even get the job. and so i feel like, we are building this for who? san francisco is catering, people who have money and privilege. the people, is 33 percent of us that will not be able to, only shows, san francisco tolerating us. and i don't appreciate that. i feel that this money should not go towards that, it needs to go towards other things and we are not just catering to the rich and the privileged, this is a liberal city and working class people and so we should be able to afford that. it should be more than just 33
percent. it should be 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent. thank you. >> >> thank you. >> any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues we have item before us, if any discussion or love to entertain a motion to move it forward. sure. okay, supervisor, tang. >> thank you. so i am glad that this item actually came back before us. i know that it was not supposed to appear before us, and so in that case, i think that the explanation provided address my concerns and so i would be willing to send out this item with a positive recommendation. >> okay, we have a motion by tang and mr. clerk could you have a roll call vote on that. >> on that motion, supervisor
tang. >> aye. >> supervisor mar? >> no. >> chair farrell? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> okay, motion passes. mr. clerk, could you call item 46, please? >> resolution approving performance contract, between community behavior health service and california, department of hel thing care services. incorporating the mental health services act projects for assistance in transition from homelessness the mental health plan and the community mental health services grant. >> okay, thank you very much, we have dph to speak on this item. >> hi, supervisors i am jill, robinson and i am the director of behavior health services and so, the approval of this, agrees that the department of public health will abide by the
contract with the health plan and that will allow the county to receive, approximately, 80 million dollars from the state. this is an annual renewal of these grants as these contracts. >> thank you very much, do you have any questions? >> thank you. we have no budget analyst report on this item and so we will move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 46? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues, could i have a motion to move this item forward. >> so moved. >> motioned by tang and seconded
>> >> ordinance amending the code, to require providers, and tenant, is receiving and >> i would like to continue this item for one week. and with that, we will open it up to public comment, anybody wish to comment on item 47? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues a motion to continue this? >> so moved. >> motioned by mar and seconded by tang and take that without objection. i want to go back to item four and i understand that the legislation is not ready in written form but we can have him read these and we can accept and move forward. >> deputy city attorney, and so they are preparing the amendments that will be submitted before the end of the meeting. i am not going to read all of the numbers into the record.
but, and referring to the not-to-exceed amount and stead of a increased amount and putting in the different value on the wrong lines and so these amendments are all, purely non-subnative and clerical and moving the numbers around to make sure that they are in the right places and the committee will have them before the meeting, and understand that because the jail items will take the time and the committee could vote on these amendments now and the written version will be sent to the clerk. >> thank you. owith that being said, colleagues, these items have the recommendation to approve these items and so these are technical, amendments that we can do based on his description, i think that it will be appropriate to us to act on those now and to move these items forward. so if i could entertain a
motion to approve those and the underlying items as amended. four through 20? >> okay, motioned by tang and seconded by mar and we can take those without objection. >> okay. that being said, now mr. clerk, if you would move on to items 37 to 43. >> yes, 37, authorizing the execution of the delivery of the certificate of participation on the taxable based evidencing and representing the principal amount not-to-exceed $215 million to finance the cost of acquisition, construction and installation of the addition and improvements for the rehab, and facility to be located on the property within the city. item 38, 215 million, for the cost of 15-16 and placing these funds on the controller's
reserve. item 39, the real property at 819-820, bryant street and, 444-6 street, 450-6 street, and 470-6 street, from lin trust musso trust and myung chun and as the issuance of paper notes and the amounts not-to-exceed, $14.5 million. >> item 40, resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of tax exempt and or taxable commercial papers notes in the aggregate amount, of 11,000, and provide the rehab detention facility to replace, county jail number three and four. item 41, resolution, authorizing the sheriff's department to accept and expend the $80 million from the lease
to financing and the construction of the facilitation and the interest of these project to replace the jail, number 3 and 4. 42, ordinance appropriate ating $1 million, 483,000 for the capitol construction of the renovation of the san francisco general hospital to accommodate the mental health services in the department of public health and deappropriate ating $1 million, 480,000 in the year 15-16. 43, amending the ten year, plan for years, 2016, to 2025, to accept an award of $80 million from the california board of state and community, corrections for the proposed rehabilitation and project. >>
>> good afternoon. i'm jessica caldderon, youth commissioner [inaudible] as a individual i'm deeply disgusted with the decision to build a new jail. the youth commission has not had the chance to take a position yet. i find it a great injustice to the youth the city they are left out of this discussion because let me remind you [inaudible] has a parent that is incarcerated. this legislation directly impacts youth who have a lauved one incarcerated or have
their own experience with this inside the system. where are their voices today? once again, [inaudible] thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. the next 3 speaker cards are steve learner andria [inaudible] and [inaudible] guy. >> thank you supervisors, i appreciate today. um, [inaudible] guy from taxpayer frz public safety and have spoken many time before and so you know we are against the jail rebuild. we think there are viable alternatives. we started this 3 and a half
years ago and one jail is closed so it isn't 2 jails at the haul orrf justice, one is closed. we have to solve the problem of closing the other one. the hall of justice needs to be closed. it is our position that within a year you could definitely close the other jail. you could start stopping to rent jail beds to the feds or the state, that would eliminate and decrease the population by 57 beds. today at 64 which is the jail that is open still is 341 beds. if you dedect those beds that are you renting out as income, that would reduce it to300. you have empty beds at [inaudible] i'm trying to talk about this in 20 minutes. [audio cutting out] problem solve this and won't have to spend a million dollars a
bed. recidivism rates at [inaudible] in a jail. whether it is seismically safe or not, whether it is beautiful or not, 70 percent still stay in jail over 100 days, all over people are [inaudible] if they are lucky within a month. you are recycling criminality. that does not create public safety. i know this is difficult-- >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors and chair farrell. my name is [inaudible] the director of the youth commission. this a issue the youth commission
hasn't had a chance to take a position on yet but it is [inaudible] effecting young people with incarcerated parents is among the priorities and [inaudible] the community needs assessment for 18,000 young people who had a parent incarcerated. this is a issue that effects the youth and family and effects young people because they are the ones responsible for paying this off over the long term. i don't see all is a chance for young people to weigh in or there is a robust public discussion on this jail build proposal not when the funding was applied for or since then. it is essential young people have a chance to weigh in on the discussion. youth commissioners asked for the meetings to be held after school hours and they haven't had a chance to hold a after school meetings with a regular scheduled meeting and the monday meeting this coming
week will hap too late for their recommendation to be included in your packet next week so i wanted to come out because they are still in school. [inaudible] interested in seeing all young peem ople in san francisco have a clans to weigh in and continue discussion on this item. >> the speaker cards are [inaudible] murray thomas and mark norton. jamesy gurber, jasmine marie thomas and mark norton. >> good afternoon supervisors.
my name is mark norton. for those out there in tv land wondering what is going on with all the pauses i think it should bow said noefs appointant of building the new jail are kept out orphthe chambers and that is what they call democracy in san francisco these days. i'm here to oppose the building the new jail and propose weal tear down the bryant street jail. i have the honor several years ago spending about 3 days in the feminie tank at brian streent. it was 1969. i was arrested at a demonstration against the international industrial conference and ended up in jail. for a brief period of time i was a political prisoner. [inaudible] and i learned that they were not
arrested mostly for being at demonstrations, they were political prisoners in the sense they were basically in jail [inaudible] for being black, [inaudible] now, i had a gun stuck in my face and had people demand money and understand [inaudible] but i also have been illegally evected and illegally fired and i haven't seen anyone come to put [inaudible] and the criminal employer squz criminal bankers and stand behind them in jail. if they did, i might be think a little different. it is time to end the mass incarceration we have now. it is time for the supervisors to think of what supervisor avalos said recently in these chambers on aortrelated issue. is time to be on the right side
of history. [inaudible] in this battle as well. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is jamesy gurber and [inaudible] project what stands for we are here and talking which stands for 2.7 million children in the united states that have a parent that is incarcerated. i am not the child of a incarcerated parent but i'm up here because the youth that i work with couldn't make this meeting because they are in school. [inaudible] commissioners appointed by you, the supervisors requested that this meeting be moved to the late afternoon so that student could come after they finish their classes. there are 17, 993 children in the city of san francisco, your city, that have a parent
that is incarcerated on any given day. the youth dissever to weigh in on this isue and have a right to talk about their parents, families and livelihood. the current jail population is 30 percent transition age youth. they are not in the room today, they deserve to be heard in this matter. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker cards are tony robeilous, danielle west and jess heeny. tony robe les, danielle west and jess heeny. >> good afternoon, my name is
tony robilous and work with a organization called senior and disability action. we are oppose today the building of a new jail. it is my hope that you listen to the testimony of the young people that have come this afternoon. what do you have for us? affordable housing? or do you have a jail? do you have an eviction and affordability crisis for people that have lived here all their lives or doand have a jail? what do you have for us? do you have jobs or a jail? what is going
on? what do and have for us? is it a jail or opportunity? a lot of people that are stuck in the system , stuck in jail is because they can't afford the bail. we urge you to look at alternatives. i understand supervisor kim is looking for alternative to building another jail. the statistics that i have been able to gleam show when all is said in done the cost of building a new jail will be in the i guess in the ball park of 600 million dollars. if you look at 500 million is a half billion, 600 million dollars not on housing, not on mental health crisis, this is a humanitarian crisis san francisco is under now and think building a
jail in the middle of a severe housing and economic crisis is just not right. we urge you to not move this agenda [inaudible] >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. danielle west and i'm a [inaudible] with tgi justice project and work with [inaudible] i'm here to echo what our younger sister said about the way transpeople are put in these cages and the way that [inaudible] the transpeople want [inaudible] frndly caging system and that isn't in our best interest. [inaudible] what we need in the
community is services and care and not these cages. the fact of the matter is roughly 1 and 2 black transwomen are incarcerated in the life time because of racism. the percentages go lower but the transcommunity especially transwomen are over policed and [inaudible] here in san francisco in the last 6 mupths we had 3 issues of police brutality and know building these cages, i know there is broader conversation fwt mubing women into womens housing, we need to pull out the number of beds and stop with our reconstruction and increase the way we are building safety for the community by listening to the community
members [inaudible] please don't send the money for transpeople. don't build the cages, do the right thing, you is the opportunity to make the right choice and stand on the right side of history and it would be better if you chose right instd of railroading this forward. that thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is jess lany and codirector of critical resistance and no new jail collation [inaudible] highlighting the testimony today. we have been here for months, actually years to address and invest in alternatives that caging people and real contemplation and practical investment [inaudible] i dont think it is a consequences that we are here at a budget hearing contemplating
what is live laelihood for the city. the sheriff disgustingly led you to approve the application by urging you to strike while theireen is hot and apply for 80 million dollars of debt. [inaudible] i'm going to urge you to [inaudible] crisis of mass incarceration and imprisonment. do something innovative and address the issue. the largest mental health facilities now are jails. do something different, invest in real helt resources. the new york times and other publications are discussing or ampifying abolishing bail. we
know 3 quarters in the san francisco system are there because they can't pay bail. [inaudible] strike why the iron is hot. [inaudible] to continue railroading ahead with the plan to build more cages where we have so many opportunities to build for livelihood. [inaudible] >> thank you. the next 3 speaker cards are [inaudible] and paub lous punosea and lee morales. >> rafael speary with architects designers and planners [inaudible] supervisor farrell it is nice to see you. i want to say 2 things
>> police violence, partner violence. 216 million dollars, what else could we do? i would love to see more services particularly mental helths for our clients. every single person that walks through our door it isn't just because the experience one single incident of violence, but there is a lot that comes before and after and i will tell you that 3 out of 4 times i don't know where to send someone where they won't be on a waitest list and told there no psychiatric services in theirolog wj or have to get on
a waiting list. i have been [inaudible] for 17 years and love the work that we do, but i really do wish we could do more. every person comes in with multiple issues not just because they were on the street for being gay or denied housing for being trans, but there are a lot of issues of post traumatic stress disorder which is aggregated when they go to jail. for them going to law enforcement isn't a alternative, it is a place that produce td harm to them. profiled them and what do you do with that information? how do you undo that? you can't but one way we try to [inaudible] to the services they are asking for is
professionally and ethically we can't provide because wree not psychologist but we want to be able to point them in the right direction-- >> thank you, next speaker please >> my name is lee morales and from community [inaudible] same organization. and we do serve [inaudible] hate violence or state violence. we are here to oppose the building of the new jail and want to create cycles of safety liberation and that isn't going [inaudible] people need to create safety in their lives and education and jobs but mental health serviceess within a jail sipuation is not what people need and what will be effective.
260,000,000 is a lot of money to invest in something that is quite frngly not going to benefit the needs the people we serve, so i would like to urge you as many other people have here today to not pass this today and allow for the other people especially youth voices that are not here to be able to weigh in on the issue and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> next 3 speaker cards are nick [inaudible] juan atillo and gloria [inaudible] >> good afternoon my name is
[inaudible] youth oreger with [inaudible] also member for justice for [inaudible] i'm here in solidarity with the people who were here earlier and those in the over pp flow room and thousands not able to be here. we are here as a broad coalition of organizations oppose today the jail because we know it is a waste of taxpayer money and negligents the needs of the working class people. the realty is san francisco has too much jail space. the logic be29 the jail expansion is faulty and untrue. there are about 1 thousand jail beds every day, mean while the population in the jails are declining to be about 65 percent. i know this isn't news to you. as elected officials you know a
lot of our families are in crisis and pack these hearings regarding a lot of critical needs the communities have for a last year alone. as members we believe that you should be thinking about those needs. there is a growing gap between rich and poor in the city and know gentrification will cause policing. expanding the jail will exacerbate the problem. 5 years ago the population in the city was 3.4 percent and today that number is oen decline. what does mean for the city that is exponded the jail and putting more money in the prizern cystism when the current jail of population in the jail is 56 percent. [inaudible] that make it so our young people and families struggling don't end up in the
jail system. we have research that shows where the money can go and you need to hear the voice of the people we heard earlier [inaudible] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> [speaking spanish] what she is trying to say is, hello. we are tired of treating our community like we don't exist. it is time for you to stop.
every day i see people ochb the streets with mental health problems. i see people that are desperate and have no solutions. these people are trying to sur vive. every day people walk among the streets and see a person with mental disabilities and they think they are lazy and don't want to work. these people don't have as many
scapegoated and called criminals and it is time we stop this and think about working class and communities and all the wealth we produce in the city to create solutions that prevent crime. thinking about all the money that can go into the the services that our communities need. we need to think about how can we serve the people out on the streets that are needed, the people that are des prit and have mental health needs. we need to think about public service squz
humanize our experience and think how to better serve the people who are trying to find a place in this community. there are so many ways we can train these people to be productive memberoffs society and have roles in the community and think about how-- >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is [inaudible] student at san francisco state university. [inaudible] a jail isn't what san francisco needs or what the city deserves. it is a shame the board decided to fast track the jail without looking into community and
health based solutions. the jail does need it be safe and structurally safe but a new jail won't change the fact that 25 percent of those in the jail are homeless every day. 85 percent are there because they can't afford bail. african american knhunty in san francisco is 4 percent the cities population but they make up half of those in the jail. this is not acceptable. the new jail will not help these solutions, we need to invest in real solutions that prevent the xhounty from having to go to jail. as a student i'm very optimistic and think of changing the world every day and how it can be better so i feel this jail isn't the way to go. we need to step back, listen to others, listen to different people on the board
and take our time to decide if this is what we need and come together to make a better solution because this isn't what we need. the country and city, we all understand the criminal justice system we have now is not [inaudible] let us come toort and create real solutions, health solutions and this jail-just vote no on this jail, please. >> thank you. next 3 speakers cards are adam [inaudible] emir [inaudible] and ken jones. adam jeeter, emir [inaudible], ken jones. ken jones. >> my name is [inaudible] my
birthday is september 11. i saw about this consference on the news regarding the jail and the rehabilitation. it is a joke. [inaudible] the big problem i wanted to come and address is we have a bigger problem that worrying about jailsism we hb will come with [inaudible] i grew up in monterey, all write town, white mother black father and white mother that was abuseed, beaten and bilittled and ran from the home and called police multiple times. it is a california problem. i can get away with anything if you are connected. i come up here because i wanted something different.
have a life that is a standard and just one. what i learned is being up here it is very similar. seeing people that work in businesses [inaudible] the abundance of-because they know the police they can work with the police and -you have bigger issues and need to work on getting your enforcement right. [inaudible] and have accountability. people talk about these things and i talked about these things, you get belittled and put down and put into racriminal mindset because they call you a criminal. you guys need to do your things right, you guys are pretty weak. >> thanks very much. next speaker, please >> my name is emir [inaudible]
member of allf us or none. we a community group to [inaudible] how can each of you walk around when you have homeless people in san francisco? on the steps of city hall. i still go home at night and [inaudible] since i'm up here i am one of the few african american men up here that you see me as a member the community or do you see me as a criminal that should be in the prison? getting ready to spend money on policies that failed. [inaudible] it hasn't done nothing. you want to continue it. there is 20 million dollars you can go for every industry that here for social services and melthal health and break the 200 million down and help everybody. you can be the beacon of the western coast and united states and be the beacon to say stop with hard currency and
go back to humanity. if you build the jails that means you are creating the problems for quality of life. you all messing up the quality of life for everybody so if you have the streets filled with everybody will you is half the population arrested and half the population law enforcement and you are the gate keepers? how can you have thousands on the streets and everybody is comfortable? how can this be a debate where to put funds? build a new prison, we don't-this shouldn't be conceived. if anybody continues with the process the 90's you are left behind. i employ you to get on the side of history, the correct side. we are right down the block, if you need help we will show you what you can do with the money, viable and save money for other future endeavors.
beautiful children and a former resident of san francisco and did all most 33 months in san francisco county jail. during my time there i grew and recognized most the people in there look like me [inaudible] the person that spoke before me. it made me come to a understanding that jails do not equate to public safety. [inaudible] back in the days of slavery. unless it means preserving and protecting white supremacy as institutions, including everyone who benefitss from it. public safety according to san franciscos way of doing stuff means removing black -primarily black people and brown people and poor people in places that are deemed prime real estate locations and slated for redevelopment.
building any jail whether it is friendly or whatever friendly, it is anteblack. if you build the new jail, anteblack because there are a number of people in the jail. the same people that are protecting and providing security, are the primary been fishiaries of the new jail we'll build. it is ironic but it is conflict of interest and if we were on jury duty those things wouldn't be able to serve if there is a conflict of interest. we have to rethink. [inaudible] it is unforpinate but i employ you to look at alternatives and not build the new jail. >> thank you very much. next speaker
>> lisabukeen with california united for responsible budget and urge you to vote no on this jail. affhas made good progress in this area, and reduced incarceration rate with pretrial alternatives and diversion program jz treatment in the community. if you vote to build this jail it will be an enormous step in the opposite direction. it is going to remove a lot of the progress that we made. san francisco has a opportunity to be a leader in the state. right now building a new jail is not demonstrating leadership and nolt innovateing. 47 counties in california are building new jails and all using the same rational san francisco is that is necessary it will improve conditions, that it will allow for more mental health treatment for
people that are incarcerated, that is a flawed rational. what san francisco needs is treatment in the community. we need to expand the diversion programs and expand the pretrial alternatives. building a new jail is going to remove any incentive we have to further reduce the jail population and to expand those programs. if we are prioritizing melthsal health streement in the jails then we are telling our poor communities that if they want mental health treatment they need to be arrested and locked up. >> thank you very much. the next 3 speaker cards are [inaudible] jones, [inaudible] zoe willmont. george jones
[inaudible] and zoe will mont. >> good afternoon. members of the [inaudible] george jones. 71 year resident of japan town and i thought [inaudible] until somebody tried to kill me. [inaudible] a murder i did not commit. that is what i was charged with. each night i thought what will i do when i get back so it doesn't happen again. the 35 years i am back in san francisco [inaudible] because [inaudible] like i am right now
coming from assault where i was attacked at uc hospital on my way to get breakfast before i went to san francisco state and i and my bike were knocked down to the ground but started to respond but i didn't. in any event, what do you say [inaudible] you are wrong. a security guard came and said [inaudible] i'm going to the cafeteria. he said let the man go and leave him alone. i have been stressed every since then. i'm a construction worker [inaudible] i was there today to sell flowers and [inaudible] torchened in the
[inaudible] i have carried this around for 35 years. i have high blood pressure. why? >> thank you very much. sorry, we have to give the same amount of time for each speaker. thank you very much next speaker please >> my name is [inaudible] i am a member of black lives matter bay area and critical resistance and instead of saying i don't want a new jail because i feel like that is obvious, i want to say what it looks like when you approve the funding. what it means is when you approve the funding it means you are waging war on black and brown people
and poor people and transpeople in san francisco you are waging war on people with mental health needs in san francisco no matter how many of the beds are to provide mental health services which i don't know how that can happen when you put someone in a cage in the first place. this past black friday black lives matter as well as members of allied organizations and folks who are born, raised and still reside in san francisco mobilized to the christmas tree lighting on union square to put ed lee on notice to speak out against now new jails and gentrification. frioratizing cages over community means safety looks like disappearing black and brown bodies and safety looks like violence and black death. you should think about
what solutions are. when we have talked several times about bail reform as a concrete thing that could reduce the jail population to the point where no new jail would need to be constructed and to you safety looks like the [inaudible] and to us this is a clear cut declaration of war on black and brown bodies and transand poor bodies in the city to make way for people you feel have a stronger financial interest in developing and pushing our people out. no new jail in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you nex speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is jo and program manager of project [inaudible] a program for incarcerated children in san francisco. we get told as children of incarcerated parent we are 7 times more likely than other children and youth to become incarceratedism san franciscos jail population is 30 percent
transition age youth, that is 18 to 24 year old yurth make up 30 percent the jail. saying we want to build a new jail is saying you want to incarcerate the children of incarcerated parent. fact the money is coming from the debt fun [inaudible] many for safe and affordable housing in san francisco. our youth can't afford to live here but wie can afford to build a new jail bed for them. the idea of a state of the art jail is twisted. i heard the jail is going to be state the art. the idea of a state of the art jail in and of itself is a twisted idea. it is great for children to visit parent and have a important high school and be the state of the art place for services. there will be mental health but what does it say blt san francisco if the supervidesers here in the room say you have to
[inaudible] to get a hi school diplomao get mental hlth care support and visit your incarcerated parent inked of in the home. it says san francisco has the priorities twisted and the city i grew up in and once loved it no longer having the priority set it should. as a child of a formally incourseerated parent and native san franciscan not in my name will you build a now jail. >> next 3 speaker cards are arvon williams, civilia johnson and john rami rez. >> good afternoon. my name is
john [inaudible] [inaudible] president of sheriffs manager ands supervisor association. the sheriff support the project. [inaudible] at the hall of justice present a safety concern to the the association, the inmates housed there, the civilian staff and general public that come to the facilities and all criminal justice partners that work and/or interact with those facilities on a daily basis. the safety concern [inaudible] seismic hazard. the [inaudible] community corrections sited [inaudible] linear design. the increases cost of repair sw maintenance need today keep the facilities to include sub[inaudible] standards. there is also a strain on other facilities unable to house the
high security inmates at the maximum security facil taiz. the current facility lacks [inaudible] the rdf would address the increasing needs for the inmate jz those are [inaudible] the award by the state of sb 863 funding forces the rdf proposed by the sheriffs department isn't a continue ygz of traditional corrections but a example where san francisco seek tooz reduce the jail bed count while exchanging that space for designated areas allocated to rehabilitation, services to include public spaces for the community. >> thank you. one more speaker
here. i am at the end our speaker cards. if there are members of the public that wish to speak that haven't spoken yet, if you inside the chambers line up and outside please feel free to come forwards. >> [inaudible] johnson and i have this [inaudible] issues that are put on this [inaudible] and i have never seen anybody in my life so jealous of the music that i play. i think
[inaudible] has been a disaster for the united states and i [inaudible] going through the 15 years, going blind and not being able to register what i'm looking at and think this is saying something that it is not. [inaudible] because of the glasses and in july-i'm getting these glasses changed and that has-i have a lot of ideas [inaudible]
without a book because of the issue with glasses. this has been a terrible disaster for me for 15 years because of not being able to register what i'm doing and being blind and focusing on [inaudible] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> we do have a socioeconomic system in the cuntsry and you go up [inaudible] it is a great privilege really. the holidays are coming and imagine you are going to midnight mass and there a beautiful baby 3 rows up and make eye contact with the baby and at that moment the one year old baby cussess you out. there will be days like that. as i understand it you are trying to
go after money. you don't get the money-i am a paleo lithic hunter gatherer and [inaudible] take a bath and there is my-the bars on the side of the shower and i remember my mars bars. i am here to find out when the day the homeless death vigil will be. i want to work on those issues and hope you remember when it comes to funding and resources i hope you remember the rest the socio-social safety net as well. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> remind anyone in 263 out std the board chambers if you want to public comment come forward. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. danielle castro a cofounder of
[inaudible] for transand queer youth and project director the center of excellence for transgender and today i'm representing [inaudible]ioligz made up of many organizations in san francisco that serve transpeople and i am submitting a letter to all you to read that is eloquent but want to give a example of the brutality we face as transpeople. you know, i'm conducting-directing research praejicts at ucsf and someone came in and a police officer came in and we were conducting a mental health group and they forced their way in and hand cuffed a participant. falsely arrested her and took her to jail. she went to jail and was mistreated there and not treated like a human being. i
think that it is important we think about these stories that we have as transwomen of color and we take that into consideration when we make large sweeping decision like building a jail for us to continue to be held in. i don't think that is a good solution and am oppose toods the jail, but i'm grateful for the support we have gotten. we still have a long way to go and more work to do and happy to speak with you individually about alternative solutions. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public in the chambers that would wish to speak on these items, 37-43? okay. at this point public comment is closed. we will now move to our departmental presentations. i
know potential speakers have had to go on to other obligations. [inaudible] city administrator is here so want to thank everyone for sticking around and look forward to the discussion. >> good afternoon supervisors. naomi kelly city administrator. i am the chair of the 10 year capital plan and over see the real estate department and department of public works that together had over 10 years and more experience of managing and man taining the haul orof justice and think everyone agrees here today that the hall of justice is in [inaudible] today we are getting requests from octpoint that there is euroen coming down the sealing of the cells and animal infestation. how this got started is
it was put on the capital plan in 2006 because the hall of justice is sizmically deficient and dangerous. it poses hazards to the inmates and those in the jails. we know from the united states geo logical survey there is a 72 percent chance of [inaudible] render the hall of justice unusable in the next 30 years. that leaves us vulnerable to structural and non structural damage and outidated unsafe linear housing unit similar to what you would see at alcatraz or adcu. there is poor visibility to linear design and risk of suicide. there are urgent treatment and urgent need for the hall of justice population and inadequate access to [inaudible] group treatment
rooms and a shortage of treatment beds for personwise suvire melthal illness. the costf not moving forward on the rehabilitation detention facility and not advancing the project means we lose 80 million of state receive new to help with the capital needs and i think i would be remissed to say this is insecond most used city building in government. there is no savings to fund a new psychiatric program that is outside of the jail that would advance [inaudible] from department of public health that would melthal health beds for the mentally ill. we may be forced to send out of county placement for inmates would create distance for from support network and prolong structural safety risk to staff, inmates and the public at the hall of justice.
currently the correctional and rehabilitation staff are unable to do their job because of poor building design and lack of space and run a ringe of court order of a replacement jail. the presentation today will cover 3 areas and you will hear from many individuals, our city controller ben rosen field, director of public health, barbara gur seea, chief freman from the sheriffs department and kate howard. the presentation will go over discussing better treatment outcomes, safety for inmate staff and vezter squz finding the best most cost effective option. redesign of this pod based -redesign of this new smaller
rehabilitation detention facility is a pod based design which means greater access to successful inhouse and near by support programs. currently now you only have access to about 20 percent of these services so you can see from this chart currently there are 905 beds at the hall of justice. the new design is reduced to 384 beds. there is 41, 300 square feet of housing area and reduce to 15 thousand feet. the day room is about 22,000 feet which would increase. classroom and programming would go occupy. currently there is 680 square foot and would increase the programming to 9 thousand square feet. the exercise yard would go from 5900 square feet to 5100 but that's 52
percent increase per inmate. medical and health services would go from 1200 square foot to 7 thousand square feet. next we would like to talk about the programmatic needs at the hall of justice and i'll call up director of public health barbara garcia, >> good afternoon, barbara garcia and will show my presentation today [inaudible] this is a seismic and public health issue. i helped cut the ribbon for our new hospital that is seismically unsafe. when you consider a jail that is seismically unsafe and the fact if we do not fix this jail and make it seismically safe, we will put 1200 community member at risk along with several00 staff members includesing at least 100 of
those from department of public health. the city department is proud of the work we have done in the community of reducing those going to jail. we have incorporated lots of services with the sheriffs and kept thousands of people out of jail by insureing they get into treatment, residential program and if they do get into jail we work with them trying to come back it the community safely and when we can get them housed. with the states proposition 47 this gives a wonderful tonight to look that way we are doing services and wilg hear about this from joe robinson. i want to emphasize we agree where the community members about community services and keep people out of jail but we cannot allow our community who are in jail in the seismically unsafe sfu silty to continue to be at risk along
with several hundred staff members t. is important for us in the department of public health we support this new seismically safe jail and create a jail that keeps people safe while they are there and provides treatment necessary when they are there. i want to make clar clear because of all the services we have done keeping people out of there is 6 percent of the population in the jail that have severe melthsal illness. many visit the mental health facilities in the jail. we provide 30 million in the jail. ask to think hard about the fact we cannot leave the community members and staff members in a seismically unsafe facility. thank you very much and you have robinson will continue. >> supervisor mar >> i want to ask about the dph
investment of 1.48 million on the psychiatric respirat program but had a number of questions about that and where the fundsing for a new facility would come from. this amounts is more for the temporary relocaegz at san francisco general ward 7 a but have a question we fund a fully supported facility for former inmates with transitional housing and sub[inaudible] >> if you allow us to finish the presentation we can answer those question squz you have robinson will address that as well. >> good afternoon supervisors. when people are incarcerated they have a constitutional right to health care and that includes melthal health care and current lay at the hall of
justice county jail 3 and county jail 4, the facilities are in sufficient to provide appropriate health care. there are nurses doing treage in the hall and don't think any of us would want our health histories shared with anyone, nor is that a community standard of care. there are no interview rooms to conduct private therapy sessions. there is no group space in these rooms or [inaudible] space which allow people to have psychosocial work and help them learn how to be in treatment programs. in addition to that, the facilities at 3 and 4 are unsafe. besides being not earthquake safe, there is also no line of sight,
so there is a higher risk of suicide and this type of lineal jail. there is also very poor access to the gym for inmates that are housed there and gym time is one of the activities that people housed in a jail look forward to. not only does it help their physical health, it also helps their mental health. substance abuse and sighicoses are the type 5 issues we treat in jail. with that, it is important to make sure that we have the resources to treat these types of disease. they are just as important as any primary care illness and the resources that are needed are
space to interview the inmates that are private and comfortable. group homes again, so that inmates can benefit from evidence based practices and groups that really improve the inmates mental health and treatment where people can walk around, be there with clinical staff and work on getting better. in the year 14/15, 36 percent of the population in the county jails had contact with jail behavioral health services. this doesn't mean they had serious mental illness. many suvss in the jail provided by mental health staff are preventative. things like, speaking to a inmate after they heard bad news whether it is in the court or at home.
jail staff will meet with them. also people with preebious contact with behavioral health staff while in the jail. the nursing staff and deputy staff want to make sure they are okay so they are also referred them to the psychiatric staff. anybody that exhibited questionable behavior whether it is another inmate that refers them to mental health, the deputy or nursing staff, the staff will pull them, talk to them and do an assessment and make thur they get the treatment that they need. overall there are 6.2 percent of the jail population with a serious mental illness and this is for 14/15. the national average is 11 to 17 percent so the services that san francisco provide to help
people reenter or divert from jail do contribute to this lower than national average percent of people in jails. of these 80 percent have a coacurns substance use disorder. i would also venture to say in my many years working in the jail with behaibhavioral helt mostf the inmates have a tromy history and need to work on the trauma and jail behavioral health services provides services. the average individual with mental illness had 62 contacts per year with behavioral health staff and the average number of days a person with serious mental illness is housed in a jail is 6 5 days. it is longer than those without serious mental
illness. at county jail 5, which is the newest facilities out in san bruno, we see and find that not only do inmates do better and thrive, so does stach. staffs morale is better, there is more chance of programming the space to do the appropriate treatment the individuals not only have a constitutional right, but also a human right to receive. if the senate bill 863 is accepted, it will allow the city to have the psychiatric respite that will be placed in the current behavioral helt center on the campus of san francisco general hospital. it will be 47 beds and the stay that we think individuals will have is between 9 to 12 months.
it will be individualized, but the individuals that will be housed there are people coming out of jail that have substance use and mental health disorders. as you know, san francisco has many collaborative courts and when a judge orders someone into treatment we want to make sure they get to a treatment program quickly as possible. a few months ago when i looked to see how many individuals were awaiting placement in a jail it was 32. that is reduced since then because we are working very very hard with our transitions department to get people on [inaudible] or misdemeanor incomp tent to stand trial but think these beds will make a big difference. when a judge writes aordser to release
to jail behavioral health when there is a open bed. we project that the services will be available in fiscal year 17/18. >> mr. chairman can i ask mrs. robinson the questions that i asked mrs. garcia? all most half the inmate population you said has a behavioral helths service system contact. 1 in 2 address getting support for behavioral health >> it was 36 percent >> so about 36 percent. >> so for the year 14/15, there were 4900 unduplicated individuals that were touched in some way by jail behavioral health services,
>> i know critical resistance has done the data crunching and said there is about 14 percent the prison inmate population has significant mental illness but you say it is 6.2 percent and yet it is quite a bit lower than the national average. >> that is correct. >> and i know that critical resistance and others sited 75 to 80 percent of the population having substance abuse issues, but you sited a higher number of 80 percent of substance abuse disorders and connected something you called truma history. how is that connected? >> the 80 percent is of the 6.2 percent, so folks that have serious mental illness, 808 percent of that population have a substance abuse issue. >> mental illness and substance abuse are connected? >> correct,
>> [inaudible] that have that intersection of both of those issue. >> yeah. and as many speakers today sl said, these are individuals that come from lower socio economic and come from violence and see violence and those are the individuals that end up in jail. that is also true of the general population that we see in the mental helths clinics, most have a trauma history too. >> what i'm not understanding about sb 863 and our decision whether to accept the 80 million dollars i thought when we could munty go to mental health i was told now. it seems to be a temporary fix and what i was asking is what is the future 887 potrero
building. it is a exist facility it isn't people that are 234 carcerated. i visited cj 5 in san bruno and it is superior the pod system and better facilities than the hall of justice but not clear how we are using state money when i was told we couldn't and what is the future of building [inaudible] at san francisco general. ? >> it is my understanding the 1.4 million dollars will be reassigned dollars that are currently going to create the new jail, so if the 80 million dollars is accepted, then dollars that are already assigned for the jails can go else where.
>> it sounds totally the opposite of what i was told during the hearings. >> kate howard the mayors budget director. what is proposed is that when-if the city chooses to accept 80 million in state funds, that frees up about 80 million dollars in the general fund debt program which translated to 8 million dollars a your in ongoing debt service cost. we can reappropriate or reallocate those funds towards other types of programs and services. the proposal in front of you which i was going to talk about in a minute does 2 things, it takes about half of those funds and redirects them to the program that mrs. robinson described and takes the remaindser and uses it to allow the remaining tenants of the hall
of justice to get out of that in a safe building on a expedited timeline >> question about how to funds the 887 project in the lodge term and you said it is opening 2017, 18 or are you talking about ward 7 a being that facility? >> the ongoing funldsing for this additional 47 beds of respite and treatment is made possible by the debt service savings. that is a annual payment that is required for the city to make over the next 30 years so that annual savings could be applied to this new program. >> does that cover the full cost of it? >> it does and 7 a is where we would move the current people that are housed in the location at the
behavioral helt center so those individuals are moved to 7 a at san francisco jenroom hospital and be in a locked ward as they are now and the behavioral health center it isn't a locked war, it is a voluntary ward can substance abuse and mental health streement and works to have people housed by the time they leave so it is getting people connected to community services while they are in community. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang >> just to add on to the questions that i heard earlier from director garcia about about 30 million dollars are spent within the jail system [inaudible] but i know a lot of the member thofz public asked questions about what is the cysty investing for melthal health outside of the jail. [inaudible] our lechbl of investment.
>> there is about 207 million dollars that go to mental health services, about 47 goes to substance use and approximately 40 million dollars at the health department spends on housing. what was the number for substance abuse? >> i believe it around 47. >> and then also i know going back to slide 5 with the chart that shows the difference in square foot wj the current hall of justice as well as the new facility, there will be 483 percent increase for space dedicated to medical and helt serviceess going from 1200 square feet to 7 thousand square feet.
the city administrator said about 20 percent of the inmate population is able to access the services and wondering if that is because of the square footage that is in existence and low and what it means in the new facility how many population of inmates can access medical and helt services >> i'm not sure what the 20 percent figure is. can i ask for clarification is on that? >> what the slide is talking about-good evening, good to see you. what the slide is talking about is in
the hall of justice jails because the design and architecture and because in 1958 the type of in custied programming done today want on the radarment you have 20 percent of inmates that can access the host of programs we can offer and in the other jails are direct supervision, and the rdf that sky rockets up >> student as high as 80 percent. >> okay. thank you very much. >> can i clarify the difference between program and treatment? the sheriff departments provides programs working on high school education and ged and violence prevention and substance use disorder pre-treatment programs and treatment is the treatment prided by health staff. programming many more people will be able to access programming that the sheriffs
department provides. >> thank you. chief deputy matte freman custody operations division office of the sheriff. we wanted to show you to help and along as you make the decision is a snap shot of the county jail population and on the day we chose november 20 when the count was 1270 interesting enough this past monday the count reached 1343 so we have seen a stabilization in the average daily population and can tell you we are seeing the jail count starting to go up. we are averaging 58 bookings a day in the san francisco county jail and there is discussion about bail and bail as it
related to incourseeration. we want to point out 43.9 percent of those in custody were under no bail status which is to say that bail is not a option that is made available to them. a striking 89.9 percent of the county jail population is in custied on felony charges. 56 percent is in custied on serious and violent felony charges. when you take a look at the average damely population of 1270 the jail count is much higher-on this day it would be 952 people higher if not for the robust alternalatives to incarceration the shaifers department provides in the county and has been leading the way for 30 years in the area second to none. total alternative sentencing
program, 112. community based contracted program, 840. we are talking about 952 people on this day were in alternatives to incarcerations if they didn't exist those 952 people would be in the county jail. we broke this information out a little further for you because after all, what are we discussing here? we are discussing the hall of juss jailsism san francisco county jail 4 on the 7 floors is the maximum security and you see the break down of the population on the slide. 234 of the inmates on the day were classified as maximum security. 194 were in no bail status. that speaks to the seriousness of the offenses. the question is, if the hall of justice jails were closed where would these inmates go? we pointed out to you these are
high risk serious charge inmates and heard discussion that potentially they could be rehoused to san francisco county jail 6. the small jail, the open dormitory jail open to 1989 on the grounds of the san browno conplex. county jail population study, december 22, 2011, this is written by kraut sidea an independent contractor that came and took a look at the san francisco county jail system. with 6 vacant housing units this facility is the obvious location to house additional inmates should the population increase. the san francisco sheriffs department is fortunate to have this resource available to house increased inmate population. the administration the jail system should be cautioned that they must resist the urge to fit these dormitory beds unless had cas fiication of the inmate allow tooz be housed dollar. many
other jurisditions in california and the rest the cuntsry artificially alters their system to fit the housing options it has available. we call this classification creep. this reduces the effectness of the classification system and reduces the safety and security the jail for inmate jz staff. we have not seen this to be the case in san francisco and their administration should be applauded for resisting the urge to fill all the beds regardless of classification. the downside of the good correctional practice istia appearance from outside the corrections environment that the resource of the jail beds in the jails are not being efficiently utilized bah they are often vac nlt. nuthsing is futhser from the truth. it is difficult to see open beds while there are inmates in the system that needs the beds, however, good correctional practice require those beds be vacant in order
to maintain a safe, and secure jail environment. this is why dependent on the configuration of housing units, dormitory versus single, double occupancy cells, the capacity of a jail should be at 80 percent of theerated capacity. while jail system may appear to not be crowded by comparing the average inmate population with theerated capacity a jail becomes more difficult to safely operate when the inmate population reaches 85 percent theerated capacity. if were in the year 2020 with the rdf built we would have 3 housing jails in the san francisco county jail system and when you looked at the count this past monday we would be at 85 percent capacity and
think it is important to point that out. in the next slide we want to show you that the county sheriffs department in san francisco may be unique when compared to many of the counties in california. takes a holistic approach to the application of the criminal justice system. we involve ourselves into things that are thought about but look at the alternatives. a lot of conversation about alternatives and there will be more discussion about alternatives tomorrow. on recognisant release. sheriff department pretrial diversion and pretrial release. court accountable homeless services, we find people housing not divert people from custody when they have no place to go. we work with individuals to do that. you see that is what we have on the front end. what about when
people are actually in secured detention is that wasted time and do nothing to set them up for successful reentry to the community and return them to the families and neighborhoods helt healthier than quh they came in we will and this is how we do it. people can get their high school diplom a. stop the violence program. roads to recoverry. sister in sober treatment. we offer services to the entire inmate population not a select few. very proud of our communities of veterans engaged in restoration. a pod at the san bruno facility county jail 5, members of the veteran administration emfweded in the pod working with the veterans court, case management
wrap around services. reentry housing unit. a pod, a collaborative effort with adult probation department where we take individuals upon release will be required to report to the mandated supervision of the probation department and start that reentry process 90 to 120 days before released. what is it the goal? the goal is return people to the community in a position where they can be successful. one thing i point out on the slide if you look at the programs with astricates what we are trying to point out here is these programs are only offered at couny jail number 2 and 5 and the reason is because they were built with programming in mind. they were designed and constructed in a way we can safely securely and humanely provide the programs to those
incarcerated. the jails in the hall of justice cannot do that. there is literally one room in the entire hall of justice where we can do deliver program content and that is shared with a myriad of other people including x rea technicians. loot the post recoverry and community based. custody altturnative and pretrial and post release. 5 key charter school is located in locations across the city in many neighborhoodsism no violence alliance a program that deals with those charged with crimes of violence. the major component of the program is offer counseling and a housing component. wens cnn, you need to treat the 8 factors in a way that can set people up for successism womens
reentry center aurfbing services to women that are a part of the criminal justice system or in danger of becoming part the system. victim services. [inaudible] report to the community assessment and service center run by adult probation department. i am so proud and so fond and very pleased to have the professional collaborative relationship with our jail behavioral health serves. i allocated 150 beds for our jail behavioral health sunchss to deliver treatment and content to those suffering from mental illness and have jail after services where they continue to see people receive medications post release in a system facilitating care. just this
week the sheriffs department led with our criminal justice partners and others in receiving a grant from the board of state and community corrections mentally ill offender grant which works with behavioral health courts to expand housing opportunities for those charged with misdemeanors upon release. moving and showing compare and contrast with the hall of justice jails and what we are trying to do with the rdf. make no mistake about it, the sheriffs department operates the county jail system and required to do that by the charter. we take that responsibility very seriously. we understand what our mission is. maintain a safe and secure county jail system. we believe we do that and do that under difficult circumstances when you consider our staff and inmates we are sworn
to protect are force td to live, work and operate in a building that is deemed seismically deefficient. if you look at the photo you get a very clear depiction of what indirect inmate supervision is. the deputy sheriff that paroles the corridor has no idea what is going on in the cells unless they stand in fronts of the doors looking at the inmates and this can create a voltile situation. county james number 5 you see a structure that was designed with therapeutic environment in mind. lots of [inaudible] and near 100 percent sight lines so deputy sheriffs can monitor inmates at all time. classrooms, multi [inaudible] embedded in the pod. the inmates have access to the
recreation well over 10 hours a day. interesting to point out about san francisco county jail number 4, in the 2012, 20s 14 report the board of state communications on page 9 the report states, the age design of counltsy jails 3 and 4 isn't conduzive to safety, programming or efficiencys in operation overall. this is very unfortunate because san francisco city and county has a history of rich programming in the jails and the community. i would submit to you in keeping with our commitment and determination to run safe and secure jails, jails that not only maintain the safety of the public because we have shown the data. the realty is there are very dangerous people that
are confined in the san francisco county jail and it is our charge to make sure the community is kept safe from those individuals. just as important is life safety for the inmates that are confined in the jail facilities and the hall oof justice jails need to be re placed with the rehabilitation detention facilities >> supervisor mar >> let me try to be sus sinkt to this. i want to thank you and deputy chief [inaudible] taking me around to san bruno and hall of justice and your commitment to making san francisco the number 1 restoreative justice system among the counties. i want e did want to say the appeal to the fear of dangerous crim inals that you made i am hearing people from the community saying that safety is through
alternative programs, lots of what we are doing and access to jobs and opportunities and others ways they can show rehabilitation and repentance and healing the communities for the harms they have done and hope we stay away from demonizing people who are incourseerated. i do know you pointed out of the snap shot there are a significant number that are high security risk and others that are not. i think you said maximum scrurt is 234, that is the large minority of the overall offenders and see the snap shot shows 1270 inmates and [inaudible] which is great and guess that is why san francisco is so headed above other jail systems, but i do know
that former sheriff [inaudible] mentioned if the trends continue and the population of inmates goes down below a thousand he would be oppose today the rebuildish or the creation of a new jail. no bail 200 folks that are no bail, i know the lawsuit that is filed by equal justice under the law and challenging the classest or what people call unequal and money based bail system, i wonder er what we are doing-i know the da and public defender, sheriff henacy, former sheriff [inaudible] also supported major changes in pre-trial and bail reform, but wondering is that no bail population a significant one where we'll see decrease in inmates over the next few years? >> thank you for the question. i'll try to answer best i can.
first thing, let me offer this to you, not my intent nor intent from anyone from the sheriffs department to demonize anyone. we do feel it is our responsibility to provide accurate information and that is what i try today do here today and continue to do. i am aware oof the efforts in bail reform area to include litigation in that area and that process will play out. bail in the application of bail is largely a function the court. the superior court i would imagine will have a lot to say. as for the percentage of inmates with no bail status, i do not believed based upon my 25 years of experience that population will be effected by bail reform. >> i know that there have been
a number of studies referred to be some of the public speakers, but one piece of data that was shared is that the federal institutions that are renting beds and in our jails and wondering is that factored into the 1270-the number you have here or how many beds are we renting to state or federal institutions? >> what is referred to as renting beds to the state really misrepresents what that situation is. that is part the collaborative effort with the adult probation department. the real effort was to bring inmates that were sentenced to the state prison from san francisco county, bring them back to the countsy jail to the serve the last 90 to 120 days of incarceration here in san francisco county where they can start the process of working
with the probation department setting them up for successful reentry. the realty is is that that part the program hasn't worked out as well as we hoped. there has been a lot of difficulties getting the inmates and having them come back to san francisco county. as a matter of fact, it is less than [inaudible] that have in the population. as it related to federal inmates, we don't have a contract to rent beds with the u.s. marshals. what you do have is the u.s. marshals northern california district and where is the federal court house for those inmates? it is san francisco county. it is here in the city, so there are times when the u.s. marshals request the sheriffs department to provide a safe keep which means it will hold one of their prisoners for 2, 3, 5, maybe a
week while that person is going through ateneding court in san francisco county. of course the sheriffs department receives a per diem per night but it isn't renting of beds and the highest i have seen that count go is between 35 and 40 inmates. >> thank you. is it true that the pre'trial population of the prison inmates population is 84 percent as stated by some of the community members? i believe that might have come from the hayward burns institute looking at arrest rates based on race, so african americans arrest td 7 times higher than whites or latinos at 1.5 or more than the white population and citing that of prison population 84 percent are pre-trial detainees >> are you referring to the county jail
oppose d to the state? the fact is the overwhelming majority is prehch sentence which means they are working their way through the court process in route to ajudication of their case >> the 2 women in the class action laut couldn't afford bail and if there were alternative sentencing or bail programs they could be released on bail at a reduced rate that could reduce the inmate population. >> i can't comment to the specifics of the 2 individuals that you referenced. i have knowledge of that case but not enough to speak to it intelligently here today. i do believe that when you look at the types of felonys charges and i passed out to you and your colleagues information and data
break down of who is in the county jail, when you look at 89.9 percent of the county jail population incarcerate on felonys, why is that? because there is the hardening of the county jail population because unlike in some jurisdictions across the cuntsry where maybe people are inrarserated because they have marijuana on them that isn't the case in this county. low level offenders with low level crimes are diverted to alternative tooz incarceration. those left behind that are in secured detention are facing serious charges and this is why they have high bail amounts. >> this is back to the numbers, so, this 384 beds proposal is reduced from 900 beds or quite a bit higher brf so it is a facility-rehabilitation
detention facility which is a euphism though we aspire to have rehabilitation system within our jails, but that number of-you factor in percentage of additional space so sthr is a population of people and factor in-i think you told me 15 percent for more difficult inmates so that you have to have more beds than the-- >> supervisor, thank you and you are correct. not talking about an expansion the countsy jail system, this isn't mass incourseeration and industrial jail #c5u78 plex. there are 828 rated beds in the hall of justice. we will close those 2 jails. the city will demolish the building and replace the beds with 384. a 57
percent reduction. significant. at the sime time when you look that totality of the cobty jail system you have one intake and release center, couny jail 1, no beds, it is for booking and release and you will have 3 housing jails. countsy jail number 2 as4257 street. the rdf [inaudible] san francisco county jail 5 and san bruno jail complex. i think that will be in the neighborhood of 1588 beds. i can figure it out exactly. it is within the controllers office update to the jail forcast and we are very hopeful it will provide the 15 percent buffer we need for the classification factor and that is what you are speaking to. in the county jail population it is diverse like our city. the realty is we have populations that for their own safety and for the safety the staff we
can't house them together. we have gajs gangs in the town, we can not house them together. very bad things would happen. we have inmates that protectival custody. we have civil commitments, people that need to be kept separate from the criminal pop ulation. when you hit 85 percent cupatty you are essentially full. >> since you brought up the different gang activities and other issues, i know in the government audits and oversight committee there were more discussion but can you give a break down of the racial and ethnic populationism black lives matter speakers talk about the incarceration rates and how unfair it is they say to african americans and latinos in the population that are over
represented. what is the data on the demo graphic snap shot? >> the snap shot you were provided-- race, black 49.37 percent. white, 35.12 percent. pacific islanderer, 8.5. other, 4.88 percent. unknown, [inaudible] american inian, alaskan native, 0.31 percent. >> the hayward burns institute analysis and report on the african marijuana population and arrest rates of 7 times higher than whites. then for the prison population 49 percent african american, what is the population of african americans in san
francisco, is st. more like 6 or 7 percent? >> i don't know off the top of my head. >> it is all most half the population of the jail is african american. >> as the data that i provided you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you very much. i know there chs a lot of talk during public comment and from the advocate, against the jail rebuild regarding alturns to building a new facility so i know the controllers office came out with their analysis regarding cj 6 on november 20. i was wondering if the controllers office can speak to the high level findings. >> ben rosen field, controller. this project has been under development for the belter part of a decade. our office is asked by the city administrator and sheriff and
board of supervisors to provide third party review of analytical question. kyle patterson has over seen a lot of that work and can cover that and a couple other updates oen our work >> good afternoon. before i get into discussion of the more recent analysis done about couny james 6 i want to talk about jail population trends. you look at the slide up now, we know that bestween 2009 and 14 a sharp decline in the jail population and i hear folks say, if the population is declining why done we wait and see what happens and may not need a jail but the data don't suggest that. in the last couple years we have seen a flat jail population and the in the last 8 months it increased. these are daily jail counts. on the left side we see 2014 the jail
count remains flat and in november 2014 proposition 47 passed and this is a proposition that downgraded a number of felonys to misdemeanors and saw a drop of 100 to 125 inmates. afterthality initial drop we have seen it tick back up. in 2015 the population is increasing. reala what it tells us is the population will plateau or increase absent or major policy changes. we have done 3 jail population forcasts thoerfb past 3 years or so and here is a table from the most recent one. the forcasts suggests we need a replacement jail as long as countsy jail 6 cannot be used at capacity. it begs the question can we use countsy jail 6? there are 8 jail populations by 6 different organizations all of them suggest we need a replacement
jail. in fact, our population forcast is the lowest of all 8 and say we still need a jail. we know there are significant issues with countsy jail 6. one is low security. countsy jail 6 is 372 bed inson bruno dormitory style which means it is basically a big gym floor with beds, there is no cells. the sheriffs department feels it is only safely house minimum scurpt inmates. there is inefficient program and mental helths treatment. there is one single program rheumcome paired to county jail 5 where there are many rooms. the dph said they don't feel they can provide adequate mental health services. it is a costly fusimty to reopen, it
is closed since 2010 and requires a number of repairs and maintenance and requires increased transportation cost. 85 percent the jail population is pre-trial that means they have to go back and forth from court. estimates have 1.77 million a year to transport folks back and forth. there are [inaudible] over the course of 40 years we are talk about 10s of millions of dollars. in excess och 50 million. if we build a replacement jail there are functions in the hall of justice included in the jail. that includes crl records and waurnts bureau which is next to the courts. it also includes holding cells for the courts. if we didn't build a replacement jail next to
the court we would need to replace those facilities that are costly to construct. we know there is a lot of issues with county jail 6 but we wanted a independent expert to look at it and asked around the city who is expert that everybody could know and trust and we asked departments who may have come out against the jail rebuild and the name that came up is doctor james austin quhoo is a expert in the field doing national work in this regard and the finding from his report is that the existing facilthies are not efficient to meet the problemt and security needs. this ubjecktdive expert that appointants of the jail agree on as being a expert said we need a replacement jail. i'll pass it to director [inaudible]
>> good afternoon members the boards. i think supervisor tank your question about jail number 6--so our department has been looking at many [inaudible] to fit this new facility and we look closely at jail number 6. [inaudible] is just so you know number 6 is in san bruno behind jail number 5 and just trying to fit it in will not accommodate the number of beds that have been recommended in that facility. if we were to improve the jail number 6 we would also have to do some more imprivements to jail number 1 and 2 and even build another annex facilities. the cost for that is over 300
million dollars to achieve a jail for that size and so the best scenario that is before us is the scenario that's presented to you is the 384 bed ajaistant to the hall of justice and have heard a lot about the hall of justice, it is just not a building that be should continue using. i myself have spent many years maintaining the hall of justice. sth electrical system and hvac systems, the plumbing are horrible. calls every day. millions of dollars spent. that building has lived its life and through our capital planning process we have started to move everybody out. >> there has been discussion about a san bruno alternative here and it seems aside from lugestics it is more expensive.
>> transporty trustees back and forth is expensive and that included in the over 300 million to achieve that 384 bed size in county jail 6 so that is on top of- >> on top of the more expensive bill cost in any case. >> yes. i think the other important think to note is with scenario one we cleared the environmental impact report and that is how we were able to apply for the grant. that was a condition to make us eligible for it, so we believe scenario 1 is the most-best option we have for the city. >> okay. thanks. >> good eveningism kate howers
the mayors budget director. just a couple slides to conclude and know any of the members of the group that is presenting has hap ato answer further questions you may have. i spoke briefly about the ongoing financial benefit to the city should we accept the grant award from the state. the next slide in the presentation tries to visually represent that. as i mentioned to supervisor mar, should the city accept the 80,000,000 in grant funds that would free up 8 million dollars we are expecting to spend in debt service payments on a annual basis. those funds then would be available to do 2 things and that is what in front of you today, a recommendation from-through the capital planning committee touous those funds to expedite the
remaining city departments out of the seismically unsafe haul orphjustice and expand mental health respite for people leaving jail or diverted from jail. the next slide shows the original timeline to exist the remaining departments out of the hall of justice. you can see that the moving county jails 3 and 4 into a new rdf is the first thing on that list. you can see subsequently who remains in the hall of justice, the adult probation, district attorney and remaining units the police department, primarily police investigation. without the grant the city is unable to relocate those
departments until 2019 or 2021. moving forward with the proposal in front of you allows all those departments to move out of the jail by 2021 which is 3 years ahead of when they would otherwise exist. i guess a couple final thoughts, we build capital facilities with the expectation they will lest 30 to 50 years and that is what we have essentially seen with the hall of justice. it is tothe end of the useful life. in order for us to not need a smaller seismically safe jail, the population that iscurrentsly in jail would have to drop by more than 300 people and it would have to stay there for 40 years. we have never seen
that in the last 40 years in san francisco that the population would be low and wouldn't need a replacement to the hall of justice. the grant that san francisco has been awarded got the top score from the state. one of the reason they said that they gave us such high marks was because of san franciscos really unprecedented success in preventing people from going to jail, diverting people from jail and having alternatives to incarceration and that this would allow us to continue to be a model for the rest of the state. the project in front of you is the culmination of more than 10 years of work and the best thinking of the departments you heard from today, department of public works, sheriffs department, controllers office,
mayors office led by the city administrators office through the capital plan. [inaudible] we believe this is the last opportunity that the city will have to receive state support for this kind of a replacement facility. that means if we do not accept the grant, we believe that we will still need a replacement to the seismically unsafe hall of justice and have to do that without 80 million dollars of money from the state. so a third of the project would not be paid for and we will have to go back the drawing board. we don't have another plan, you heard cj 6 is not a workable alternative based on the review we have done. the plan in front of you provides a safer more
seismically sound option, reduces the number of beds to 384 which is 57 percent reduction than the hall of justice. it provides improvedachy sess to treatment and programs and suvss inside of jail. it also allows to open up a brand new psychiatric restpet facility, a program which we have nothing comparable to in san francisco right now. finally, this really as i said a moment ago, this is our best thinking and we present it to you because we believe this sp the right thing for san francisco to do and it would be a mistake to not move forward at this time given all the work that has been done. there are people who disagree and there are strong opinions on this issue, i hope we made the case that thought about it seriously
and ask you to take it seriously too. >> thank you mrs. howard. supervisor tang >> thank you mr. howard. i have one question. i know you touched upon what would happen if yee don't have a new facilities which i think a lot the folks are advocating strongly for. i saw on slide 3 is a little touching oen what would happen on a practical side i would like to find more detail. for example, the out of cunty placement and risk of cort order or other action of replacement jail. i want to know if this doesn't happen what are the results? >> thank you supervisor tang. i can't entirely forsee the future among inpresenters who would be belter to speak on this than i am but a
couple thoughts. you know, if we don't move forward with a replacement facility we will continue to keep people in a seismically unsafe building. we continue to keep city staff kw even more importantly people who cannot physically leave that building in the building until we come up with a plan everybody can agree on. in the mean time the building becomes unusable, then i think the options are equally challenging. one option is to identify and rent beds from other counties. i imagine that the sheriffs department would do everything they can to manage within a countsy or with the site in san bruno but know that isn't sufficient given the
classification of the folks in the hall of justice today. of course when you move people out of countsy you have transportation cost and people being far away from the public defender and representation and family and other kinds of support. i don't know if deputy chief freeman would like to say a couple words >> sfr visor tang i would share a story, a as young deputy sheriff in 1992 i remember very well working at the old saf county jail 3 on the grounds of san bruno and that jail is demolished. it was the oldest jail west of the mississippi. what i remember well is every thursday we have to gee and pull inmate tooz be put on a bus and they were going to santa rita kwrail. they were going to alameda county because we were under federal consent to get the count down
because we had inmates sleeping on the floors and in closets and gyms and had tragicintsdant tied to ovcrowding. judge [inaudible] didn't take kindly. serious ramifications were headed the way and that was 1992. i know what it wril cost to house beds in santsa rity. when the inmates are out there we have togo to dublin every day bring them to court and transport back at the thofend day and not to disparage alameda but the inmates will not receive the programs they will receive here. it is expensive to house inmates out of county, incredibly expensive and not to the benefit of the
inmates and the inmates families, not to the benefit of the neighborhood where those inmates come from. it isn't safe from a security standpoint because you transport inmates to and from court. san francisco county was under the federal [inaudible] back in the 80's under the michael henacy administrationism we do not want to return to those days. we dont want to relinshuish authority of the jail to federal [inaudible] >> thank you sheriff. okay, are there any other staff presentations? i know we are through the slide deck. colleaguesgy questions, comments at this point in time? supervisor tang, >> i think i will start off the very difficult conversation. i know
there are a lot of people who in the chamber and spoke very much against the rebuild of the facility at 850 bryant and know it is-there is a larger movement behind the arguments and i can understand that. my message to them would be that and i think i said this at the last budget committee hearing when we debate the grant from the state is we have a large of very mutual interests. we share that we believe that there should be more services for pre-trial diversion and more money put and services for treating mental health substance abuse. services outside the jail instead of inside mpt all these things we agree on. however, i think overall some of those arguments really
ignore the practical realties of what would happen if the new facility were not rebuilt. i think that in some of the departments that were here today answered my questions, i think those concerns outweigh what the current situation is. there are a lot of people who can't speak for themselves, the people in county jail 3 and 4 at 850 bryant now. some of the folks are here that are recently released and appreciative to hear their perspective but many cannot speak for them sevl squz don't want to presume i know what is in their best interest or what the families need but i doknow the current conditionerize not sufficient and doesn't provide a good path to succeed once they are reentering into the communities. so, with that said, i think that for me the decision isn't driven by the fact that we have the 80 million dollar grant from the
state, that helps, but my decision really is taking into crrkz consideration who is there now and what they need and think san francisco can continue to set a positive example for the rest the state and country in terms of what we can do to transform the space that we house inmates and provide them with the services they need to bow able to successfully exist the jail system. i think there are lots of improvements. i known [inaudible] nob solitaire confinement regarding juveniles. there are efforts by members the board regarding banning the box to smake sure people are records have better chance for job opportunities. the practical realty of not building a new facility i think is very negative
especially for the popeal that are there and their families. so, with that said, today for me i would like to move all of the items that are before us to the full board. i can do so without a positive recommendation. i know given there is a lot of concern and there should be more debate at the full board so those are my thoughts. >> thank you. mr. rose can we go to your reports and apologize >> on page 26 of the report we show the jail replacement project budget is 240 million dollars shown in table 2. on page 27 of the report the office of public finanls estimates a 5.02 percent interest rate that result in 9
8.8 million interest [inaudible] principle amounts of 208.3 million shown in table 3 on page 27 the report the interest payments that result in 307.1 million over the life of the [inaudible] and that is shown in table 4 on page 27 of our report. we do have a number of recommendations which are shown on page 30. we recommend you amend file 151175 to specify the certificate of proceeds are used to refund 12, 690, 00 [inaudible] to funds jail replacement program cost. we recommend you amend file 151184 to choir the
drerkter of real estate report on the purchase agreement for the 4 properties to be acquired within the 5 days of the purchase agreements and make that agreement because under the resolution the director of real estate is authorized to purchase the properties without board of supervisor approval. we recommend you [inaudible] authorize request [inaudible] we recommend also request the director of real estate to include consideration of the benefits to the sellers of not paying 248, 850 in transfer taxes. we consider approval the proposed recommendations and the ordinance to the policy matter to the board of supervisors. >> thank you very much. supervisor mar
i'll return but if we have questions we will return. >> thank you. i did want to say that i came into the meeting hoping that we could continue this item till after the jao meeting happening tomorrow. alternatives to incarceration are a big part of of funding of programs from the bail reform to many of the wrap around services on substance abuse and mental health service help to continue to to reduce the prison pop ygz in the city. i did understand the controllers report that the population is not going down as we assumed, but there are many different ways that community based alternatives to incarceration can help continue that trend downward. i appreciated the comment from former inmates and children with
incarcerated parent and many that gave testimony. i wish we did rnt have to exclude people from the chambers and could center had everyone here to be able to observe and not from a room outside of the these chambers, but i know the disruption earlier is one of the reasons why we had to re-sort to that. i also wanted to say that [inaudible] the sheriffs office and all the speakers and the care that you put into addressing issue for example cj 6 and how it isn't appropriate and costly to turn it entothe kind of facility some of the appointants are saying. the motion is to move this forward without objection i was prepared to vote against moving forward but i think i will allow this to go to full board for further discussion. i think the jao meeting tomorrow is important. i did want to last say that i think the youth
voices were important and could still have come to the meeting because this stetched beyond it but my hope is as the youth commission and others urge us to schedule meetings so that young people [inaudible] and these issues could participate. the last point i would like to make is i think this is a critical vote for us as board. it isn't just a 80 million dollar grant from the state but it puts our sate eon record moving towards rebuilding of a prison and supporting of a process that is continuing with mass incarceration of african americans and poor people as the numbers from the [inaudible] and other studies have shown and want to be on the right side of history so i'll vote no against the process that moves forward in building a new prison when i think addressing the root
causes are about addressing the mental helths substance abuse housing and other needs in our communities not spending money on a new prison so i will vote no as it comes forward but as the motion is move this forward i'll support that motion >> i will be brief in my comments and thank everyone for sticking round and have a lot of department heads so think for your time and all the work that has gun into this. i want to associate myself with the comments of supervisor tang and the questions that were asked were the things i wanted to dive into today. talking about san bruno and cj 6 and why that kmt a viable alternative is important to look into. i think this is a numbers game in one aspect and something we need to think about and what is plan b? what is
the implications? i think that is something we need to think about and so i appreciate all those comment. i will say in a quick question to the director of the controller, i think the original discussion was around for warding the item to next week. i know there are deadline discussions here. would we be able to maintain our status with the potential 80 million dollars if we forward to december the 15? >> our office helps with the technical aspect of the grant application process so we reviewed this question. no, the board needs to take action on these items before recess in december. there is no challenge with the december 15 date. >> colleagues i-first if we will be able to [inaudible] i ask that
we accept or consider the budget analyst recommendations. from my perspective as relate tooz next week versing the 15 we have a change in the seats and know there are questions around timing of planes and so forth and i think we should gichb a opportunity to make sure that the go forward board of supervisors is the one deciding this so think december 15 is a appropriate time to forward the item. if there is no other discussion i would love to entertain a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation squz forward the items as amended to the full board december 15. motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor mar. take that without objection. okay, it is 6 o'clock on the note. mr. clerk do we have other business? >> no other business. >> thank you everybody, we are adjourned.
your cell phones or keep them on vibrate two a speaker on an item or part of public and want to speak an, an item please fill out a speaker card i'll call think you. >> please step forward when public comment is open. >> thank you it sfgovtv and media services for showing this meeting live to the public overtime we met let's start with roll call commissioner lee commissioner joseph commissioner moshoyannis commissioner caminong commissioner president tan we have quorum we were right given notice that commissioner frost and ohio the first item a public comment on any item pertainably
to the straefks you don't see agendize any. new if so it later you'll come later but something you don't see on the agenda but we need to know this is your chance not seeing any, public comment is closed. item 2 a review and that places you under from august 18th and september 15th i believe there is one change commissioner lee would like to point out and make tuesday september 15th item e the restaurant i recused myself i voted yes, please correct that >> did you catch it crystal any other edits or changes inform either set of minutes? if not happy to entertain and
motion >> because i was absent one and not the other maybe split them. >> the motion - >> i'd like to make a motion to bifurcate the minutes. >> second. >> a motion to beautify commissioner moshoyannis sxhoig commissioner president tan all right. let's go ahead and take the first one which was august 18th i move to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second any public comment on the minutes all right. let's take a vote. >> commissioner lee commissioner joseph commissioner moshoyannis abstain sxhoig commissioner president tan the motion passes let's move on to september 15, 2015. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> a there is a motion and a
second with the corrections made earlier any public comment? ? all right. seeing none, let's vote >> commissioner lee commissioner joseph commissioner moshoyannis commissioner caminong commissioner president tan. >> that motion passes too so the minutes are set thank you very much let's move on to item 3 the report from the executive director and our staff. >> good evening commissioners a few things to report on the first under the heading of the legislative update is a new piece of legislation i have one copy here we know send anyone a copy if they want it was introduced les last tuesday but supervisor wiener's it has a substantial reform to a ab school committee it stands for
the enter departmental staff on transportation the body it meets to close streets and so as i said for years we've been a seated member on ab scott and it is being examined and this legislation will pretty much make some reforms and in a nut shell you'll accepted to anyone it is keeps ab school would on the mta that's the deal the membership remains, however, they are in this legislation requiring all the agencies that do sends members send specific members that are supposed to attend the same members, if you will, of the same department not who is available it also adds for seats four seats to whom are
folks recommended to bikes and pedestrian issues that have not been represented and seat 10 is a understanding the perspectives of the entertainment commission industry appointed by the board of supervisors and the seat 11 is organizing a temporary event appointed by the board of supervisors it is age different it is typical been staff leveled bureaucrats sittings around talking about the kinds of permits required once a ceqa is the key as a rule sort of overlay of the commission like appointment process although ross are not chapter commissions seats they do go through appointment in the rules committee and sit as
volunteers essentially no monetary pay back but it is interesting it is sort of maybe weighs heavily so people understand the activities going on in the streets like fairs and festivals you're smiling. >> i love it. >> it is very interesting and also requires minutes to be kept and quorums to be met and annual report to be issued it is asking for more affordability i think essentially and it is requires there to be a new chair at least every 5 years so it is in its thirty day wait period and likely heard anothers gao or something i'll keep the commission informed and as far as those two new seats we'll be asked for input in terms of
folks predicament for those seats. >> a quick question did supervisor wiener's office identify a problem or series of problems that that was somehow adding. >> yes. it is a simple answer and i'm bet if you explicit talk about it at introduction he'll do see when it is the first committee hearing as far as that it is certainly some discomfortable in his office about coming two consistence would respect to other outcomes again we've been sitting for years on it and sent consistent members to it and you know everyone has a different opinion that is the best thing to say at this point so any event it is interesting i don't know